public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: optional paranoid __{get,put}_user checks
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 09:47:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171028084729.GL20805@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171027154113.GA13737@arm.com>

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 04:41:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Probably a stupid question, but why not just move the access_ok check
> into __{get,put}_user and remove it from {get,put}_user? We can also
> then move the uaccess_{enable,disable}_not_uao calls out from the __
> variants so that we can implement user_access_{begin,end}.

The intent of __{get,put}_user() is to have a fast accessor compared
to {get,put}_user() which does all the full checks.

However, with the uaccess stuff we have now by default, I don't think
it makes much sense - maybe we're better off using copy_{to,from}_user()
in those code paths and fixing up the struct in kernel space rather than
__{get,put}_user()?

I suspect that if we do have the full checks in __{get,put}_user() that
makes the case stronger for doing that - and maybe killing the __
accessors entirely.

Take a look at kernel/signal.c to see a typical usage of the __
accessors.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-10-28  8:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-26  9:09 [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: optional paranoid __{get,put}_user checks Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: write __range_ok() in C Mark Rutland
2017-11-16 15:28   ` Will Deacon
2017-11-20 12:22     ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-26  9:09 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: allow paranoid __{get,put}user Mark Rutland
2017-10-27 15:41 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: optional paranoid __{get,put}_user checks Will Deacon
2017-10-27 20:44   ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-28  8:47   ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2017-10-31 23:56 ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 12:05   ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 21:13     ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 22:28       ` Kees Cook
2017-11-01 23:05         ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-01 23:29           ` Kees Cook
2017-11-02  1:25             ` Laura Abbott
2017-11-03 23:04 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Avoid multiple evaluations in __{get,put}_user_size Laura Abbott
2017-11-03 23:04   ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] x86: Allow paranoid __{get,put}_user Laura Abbott
2017-11-04  0:14     ` Kees Cook
2017-11-04  0:24       ` Al Viro
2017-11-04  0:44         ` Al Viro
2017-11-04  1:39         ` Kees Cook
2017-11-04  1:41           ` Kees Cook
2017-11-04  1:58         ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-06 20:38       ` Laura Abbott

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=20171028084729.GL20805@n2100.armlinux.org.uk \
    --to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=labbott@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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