From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1758436AbcHaJoH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:44:07 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56304 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750708AbcHaJoF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 31 Aug 2016 05:44:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:43:47 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/usercopy: get rid of
 CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS
Message-ID: <20160831094347.GA4783@leverpostej>
References: <20160829170813.l3jwu75ltu7tpryn@treble>
 <eaf5766c8f4228f5b3b276ece8801448db5e668f.1472562080.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <CA+55aFzUGGFUvjkTy1tK7VqO-M7iQTOAzn3n6dHoxohTqK4rhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jJXsGBpswbP39AmDeUnapqccNKDw_ZoRf12bXkWmPUwiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160830201331.GL2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160830201331.GL2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:15:58PM -0400, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > First, some current API usage which we'll need to maintain at least
> > for now: __copy_*_user() is just copy_*_user() without the access_ok()
> > checks. Unfortunately, some arch implement different copying methods
> > depending on if the entry is via copy...() or __copy..() (e.g. see
> > x86's use of _copy...() -- single underscore??) There doesn't seem to
> > be a good reason for this, and I think it would make sense to extract
> > the actual per-arch implementation that performs the real copy into
> > something like arm64's __arch_copy_*_user(), which only does the copy
> > itself and nothing else.
> 
> No.  __arch_copy_from_user() is a bloody bad idea; the real primitive
> is what's currently called __copy_from_user_inatomic(), and I'm planning
> to rename it to raw_copy_from_user(). 

Great!

FWIW, my plan with the arch_* forms was to follow the convention set by
the spinlock code and have raw_* forms build atop of these, where common
debug and/or hardening checks would live.

>>From my PoV, anything to make this more consistent cross-architecture is
good, especially if we can pull the duplicated logic into common code.

Thanks,
Mark.