From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH] sparc64/gup: check address scope legitimacy
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 21:38:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1448491543-17946-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org>
Hi Yang.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> Check if user address is accessible in atomic version __get_user_pages_fast()
> before walking the page table.
> And, check if end > start in get_user_pages_fast(), otherwise fallback to slow
> path.
Two different but related things in one patch is often a bad thing.
It would have been better to split it up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
> ---
> Just found slow_irqon label is not defined, added it to avoid compile error.
>
> arch/sparc/mm/gup.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c b/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> index 2e5c4fc..cf4fb47 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
> @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> addr = start;
> len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> end = start + len;
> + if (unlikely(!access_ok(write ? VERIFY_WRITE : VERIFY_READ,
> + (void __user *)start, len)))
> + return 0;
This change is not justified.
Why would we take the time to first do the access_ok() stuff.
If this had been an expensive operation then we had made this function
slower in the normal case ( assuming there were no access violations in the
normal case).
When I look at the implementation of access_ok() I get the impression that
this is not really a check we need.
access_ok() always returns 1.
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> pgdp = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
> @@ -203,6 +206,8 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
> addr = start;
> len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> end = start + len;
> + if (end < start)
> + goto slow_irqon;
end can only be smaller than start if there is some overflow.
See how end is calculated just the line above.
This looks like a highly suspicious change.
Sam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-03 20:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-25 22:31 [PATCH] sparc64/gup: check address scope legitimacy Yang Shi
2015-11-25 22:45 ` [V2 PATCH] " Yang Shi
2015-12-03 20:38 ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
2015-12-03 22:23 ` Shi, Yang
2015-12-05 9:59 ` Sam Ravnborg
2015-11-26 0:26 ` [PATCH] " kbuild test robot
2015-11-26 0:31 ` Shi, Yang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org \
--to=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yang.shi@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox