[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141003232536.GG12538@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 01:25:36 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, dave@...1.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eranian@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Only do a single page fault for
copy_from_user_nmi
> There are cleaner ways to solve this problem - PeterZ offered
> one, but there are other options as well, such as:
>
> - removing exact-bytes semantics explicitly from almost all
> cases and offering a separate (and more expensive, in the
> faulting case) memcpy variant for write() and other code that
> absolutely must know the number of copied bytes.
That would be a full tree audit of thousands of calls.
And any mistake would be a security hole.
> - or adding a special no-bytes-copied memcpy variant that the
> NMI code could use.
That's the duplicated copy path I mentioned. If people really want that
I can implement it, although I personally think it's ugly and bloated
over engineering for this case.
> It might be more work for you, but it gives us a cleaner and more
> maintainable kernel. The problem is that you should know this
> general principle already, instead you are wasting maintainer
> bandwidth via arguing in favor of ugly hacks again and again...
The duplicated path is unlikely to be more maintainable
than the simple and obvious check.
-Andi
--
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