[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <629d90d9-df33-2c31-e644-0bc356b61f25@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:25:20 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirsky <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
"Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] mm/gup: Fixup p*_access_permitted()
On 12/15/2017 05:10 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Because *if* we want to check protection keys, I think we should do
> that at the vma layer, partly exactly because the exact implementation
> of protection keys is so architecture-specific, and partly because I
> don't think it makes sense to check them for every page anyway.
So, there are VMA checks against protection keys. The problem _here_ is
that we are checking against the VMA (and correctly skipping the PKRU
checks) and then _mistakenly_ applying the PTE checks against PKRU.
I think the reason we needed VMA and PTE checks was the
get_user_pages_fast() path not having a VMA.
I need to go re-read the commits, though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists