[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <C3E28135-6482-4B67-96CD-8E92788D64C4@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:52:11 +0800
From: yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
x86@...nel.org, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [x86] copy_from{to}_user question
> On Aug 22, 2015, at 17:05, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 02:06:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> What I'm saying is that we do do STAC, which *disables* SMAP. We have
>> to do that because one pointer is known to be a user space pointer.
>>
>> However, we currently don't verify that the *other* pointer is kernel
>> space, which it is supposed to be (if not, we should be using
>> copy_in_user). We have to do this manually since we have to STAC which
>> means SMAP doesn't do anything at all. I believe it would be a good
>> idea to add such checks (and they would even benefit non-SMAP hardware.)
>
> Ah, ok, so we're on the same page.
>
> And yep, Linus gave the probe_kernel_read() suggestion in another mail.
>
i am not clear about what is STAC / SMAP ?
could you give me a link for understanding ?
Linus suggest to use probe_kernel_read() , but also said it is
not efficient to use it, because we need copy the data 2 times by this method.
my patch suggests to use copy_in_user() ,
but seems not a generic(portable) function on all architectures.
Thanks--
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