netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:58:15 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-cris-kernel@...s.com, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly
 pass FOLL_* flags

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
> me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check
> mm != current->mm and imply that. Maybe there are some contexts which
> wouldn't work, I haven't checked.

This flag is set even when /proc/self/mem is used. I've not looked deeply into
this flag but perhaps accessing your own memory this way can be considered
'remote' since you're not accessing it directly. On the other hand, perhaps this
is just mistaken in this case?

> I guess there is more work in that area and I do not want to impose all
> that work on you, but I couldn't resist once I saw you playing in that
> area ;) Definitely a good start!

Thanks, I am more than happy to go as far down this rabbit hole as is helpful,
no imposition at all :)