RE: [PATCH] riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for __access_ok()

From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Arnd Bergmann' <arnd@arndb.de>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@sifive.com>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
	"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>,
	guoren <guoren@kernel.org>, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>,
	Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Xiao W Wang" <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>,
	Yangyu Chen <cyy@cyyself.name>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for __access_ok()
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:19:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <882fc86da89f4adb81570cde3a653e6f@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <95eb125d-dd54-42f1-b080-938faca6a8a1@app.fastmail.com>

From: Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 25 March 2024 20:38
> 
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, at 19:30, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:02:13PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, at 17:39, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> >> If an architecture ignores all the top bits of a virtual address,
> >> the largest TASK_SIZE would be higher than the smallest (positive,
> >> unsigned) PAGE_OFFSET, so you need TASK_SIZE_MAX to be dynamic.
> >
> > Agreed, but do we even support such architectures within Linux?
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> On 32-bit architectures, you often have TASK_SIZE==PAGE_OFFSET,
> but not on 64-bit -- either the top few bits in PAGE_OFFSET are
> always ones, or the user and kernel page tables are completely
> separate.

ISTR that arm64 uses (something like) bit 56 to select kernel
with the annoying 'feature' that the high bits can be ignored
just to complicate things.

But I also recall the people that want 'address masking' for x86-64
have been persuaded that addresses with the top bit set are invalid.
I has to be said that I'm not sure that aliasing user addresses
like that is a good idea.
If the TLB/PTE verified the masked bits it might be more use.

If bit63 selects kernel addresses (as in x86-64) there is a massive
(non-canonical address) gap before the first valid kernel address
that is larger than the user address space (and hence buffer size).
I think that lets access_ok() check ((address | size) >> 60) != 0.
Although it probably means that you don't need to test 'size' at all
(unless some code probes the last byte of the buffer).

For 32bit the user/kernel boundary is usually 0x80000000 or 0xc0000000
and there may not even be an invalid page between the two.
This does require access_ok() check the length (even for get_user()).

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv