[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5723C33E.1020303@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:25:34 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86/xsaves: Fix PTRACE frames for XSAVES
On 03/04/2016 10:12 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> + for (i = 0; i < XFEATURE_MAX; i++) {
> + /*
> + * Copy only in-use xstates.
> + */
> + if (((header.xfeatures >> i) & 1) && xfeature_enabled(i)) {
> + void *src = get_xsave_addr_no_check(xsave, i);
How could a bit in header.xfeatures get set if it is not set in
xfeature_enabled() aka xfeatures_mask aka XCR0?
...
> +int copyin_to_xsaves(const void *kbuf, const void __user *ubuf,
> + struct xregs_state *xsave)
> +{
> + unsigned int offset, size;
> + int i;
> + u64 xfeatures;
> +
> + offset = offsetof(struct xregs_state, header);
> + size = sizeof(xfeatures);
> +
> + if (kbuf)
> + memcpy(&xfeatures, kbuf + offset, size);
> + else if (__copy_from_user(&xfeatures, ubuf + offset, size))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + /*
> + * Reject if the user tries to set any supervisor xstates.
> + */
> + if (xfeatures & XFEATURE_MASK_SUPERVISOR)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < XFEATURE_MAX; i++) {
> + u64 mask = ((u64)1 << i);
> +
> + if ((xfeatures & mask) && xfeature_enabled(i)) {
> + void *dst = get_xsave_addr_no_check(xsave, i);
> +
> + offset = xstate_offsets[i];
> + size = xstate_sizes[i];
> +
> + if (kbuf)
> + memcpy(dst, kbuf + offset, size);
> + else if (__copy_from_user(dst, ubuf + offset, size))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> + }
If a caller tries to pass a non-enabled xfeature in, we appear to just
silently drop it and return success. Is that really what we want to do
or do we want to error out?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists