linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20140114154142.GG7572@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:41:42 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
 tree

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:20:36PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> > On 01/14/2014 04:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 03:53:31PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi Andrew,
> >>>
> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in
> >>> kernel/futex.c between commit a52b89ebb6d4 ("futexes: Increase hash table
> >>> size for better performance") from the tip tree and commit 61beee6c76e5
> >>> ("futex: switch to USER_DS for futex test") from the akpm-current tree.
> >>>
> >>> @@@ -2869,10 -2748,13 +2871,13 @@@
> >>>       * implementation, the non-functional ones will return
> >>>       * -ENOSYS.
> >>>       */
> >>> +    fs = get_fs();
> >>> +    set_fs(USER_DS);
> >>>      if (cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, NULL, 0, 0) == -EFAULT)
> >>>              futex_cmpxchg_enabled = 1;
> >>> +    set_fs(fs);
> >>>
> >>
> >> This seems terribly broken, the *futex_value*() ops should not need
> >> that; they are supposed to access userspace without any of that.
> >
> > I am *guessing* that m68k is has get_fs() == KERNEL_DS at the point that
> > futex_init() is called.  This would seem a bit of a peculiarity to m68k,
> > and as such it would seem like it would be better for it to belong in
> > the m68k-specific code, but since futex_init() is init code and only
> > called once anyway it shouldn't cause any harm...
> 
> Yes it does. So when getting the exception on 68030, we notice it's a kernel
> space access error, not a user space access error, and crash.

Is there a good reason m68k works like this? That is, shouldn't we fix
the arch code instead of littering the generic code with weirdness like
this?
--
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/