linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/vdso: Change return type to vm_fault

lists.openwall.net		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]

Message-ID: <20180703111735.GA3544@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jul 2018 04:17:35 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     luto@...capital.net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        brajeswar.linux@...il.com, sabyasachi.linux@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/vdso: Change return type to vm_fault_t for fault
 handlers

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:27:37PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> Use new return type vm_fault_t for both fault handler
> vdso_fault() and vvar_fault(). Previously vm_insert_pfn()
> returns err which has to mapped into VM_FAULT_* type.
> The new function vmf_insert_pfn() will replace this
> inefficiency by returning correct VM_FAULT_* type.

> @@ -105,10 +105,10 @@ static int vvar_fault(const struct vm_special_mapping *sm,
>  	 * the page past the end of the vvar mapping.
>  	 */
>  	if (sym_offset == 0)
> -		return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> +		return ret;
>  
>  	if (sym_offset == image->sym_vvar_page) {
> -		ret = vm_insert_pfn(vma, vmf->address,
> +		ret = vmf_insert_pfn(vma, vmf->address,
>  				    __pa_symbol(&__vvar_page) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>  	} else if (sym_offset == image->sym_pvclock_page) {
>  		struct pvclock_vsyscall_time_info *pvti =
> @@ -124,14 +124,11 @@ static int vvar_fault(const struct vm_special_mapping *sm,

Haven't you missed converting vm_insert_pfn_prot() at line 117?
Did you test-compile this?