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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 5 Apr 2018 22:34:08 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <>
To:     Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:     Al Viro <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        stable <>,,
        linux-mm <>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Huang Ying <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <>,
        Chris Wilson <>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <>,
        "Gong, Zhipeng" <>,
        Akash Goel <>,
        "Volkin, Bradley D" <>,
        Daniel Vetter <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gup: return -EFAULT on access_ok failure

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:43:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <> wrote:
> >
> > to repeat what you are saying IIUC __get_user_pages_fast returns 0 if it can't
> > pin any pages and that is by design.  Returning 0 on error isn't usual I think
> > so I guess this behaviour should we well documented.
> Arguably it happens elsewhere too, and not just in the kernel.
> "read()" at past the end of a file is not an error, you'll just get 0
> for EOF.
> So it's not really "returning 0 on error".
> It really is simply returning the number of pages it got. End of
> story. That number of pages can be smaller than the requested number
> of pages, and _that_ is due to some error, but note how it can return
> "5" on error too - you asked for 10 pages, but the error happened in
> the middle!
> So the right way to check for error is to bverify that you get the
> number of pages that you asked for. If you don't, something bad
> happened.
> Of course, many users don't actually care about "I didn't get
> everything". They only care about "did I get _something_". Then that 0
> ends up being the error case, but note how it depends on the caller.
> > What about get_user_pages_fast though?
> We do seem to special-case the first page there. I'm not sure it's a
> good idea. But like the __get_user_pages_fast(), we seem to have users
> that know about the particular semantics and depend on it.
> It's all ugly, I agree.
> End result: we can't just change semantics of either of them.
> At least not without going through every single user and checking that
> they are ok with it.
> Which I guess I could be ok with. Maybe changing the semantics of
> __get_user_pages_fast() is acceptable, if you just change it
> *everywhere* (which includes not just he users, but also the couple of
> architecture-specific versions of that same function that we have.
>                     Linus

OK I hope I understood what you are saying here.

At least drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c seems to
get it wrong:

        pinned = __get_user_pages_fast(obj->userptr.ptr,

        if (pinned < 0) {
                pages = ERR_PTR(pinned);
                pinned = 0;
        } else if (pinned < num_pages) {
                pages = __i915_gem_userptr_get_pages_schedule(obj);
                active = pages == ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
        } else {
                pages = __i915_gem_userptr_alloc_pages(obj, pvec, num_pages);
                active = !IS_ERR(pages);

The <0 path is never taken.

Cc maintainers - should that driver be changed to use

Powered by blists - more mailing lists