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

From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: 'Arnd Bergmann' <arnd@arndb.de>, 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 14:49:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZgLglSl94dnWIoqX@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <882fc86da89f4adb81570cde3a653e6f@AcuMS.aculab.com>

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 10:19:28AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> 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.

Yes, bit 55.

We choose our TASK_SIZE_MAX to be below 2^55, so no kernel address will pass
access_ok(), and we pre-mangle the TBI bits for userspace so they can't affect
the check and fail unexpectedly.

So it doesn't actually matter -- leave that aspect to arch code.

Mark.

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