[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bogvup4w.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:44:47 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc: Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: sys_kcmp
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:51:19PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> > I expect what you want is a call to access_ok, rather than hard coding
>> > details about task layout here. This test certainly looks wrong
>> > for a 32bit process on a 64bit kernel. If I read your test right it
>> > appears I can set values of say 0x100000000 on a 32bit process...
>> >
>> > As for mmap_min_addr I would expect your find_vma check would make that
>> > test unnecessary, simply by not finding a vma...
>>
>> Good point, Eric, thanks! I'm cooking a new patch now.
>
> Btw, Eric, I somehow miss one bit -- how would you set this 0x100000000
> if TASK_SIZE is a macro which does check for TIF_ADDR32 and sets limit
> acordingly? What i'm missing?
How odd. Last time I had looked TASK_SIZE was a simple constant.
Still I wonder a little if all architectures currently run from 0 to
TASK_SIZE, for address space available. I seem to remember there have
been some exceptions to that rule. But I can't recall what they were.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists