linux-kernel - Re: [PULL] vhost: cleanups and fixes

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]

Date:   Fri, 2 Nov 2018 09:14:51 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     mst@...hat.com
Cc:     mark.rutland@....com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        bijan.mottahedeh@...cle.com, gedwards@....com, joe@...ches.com,
        lenaic@...ard.fr, liang.z.li@...el.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
        mhocko@...e.com, stefanha@...hat.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PULL] vhost: cleanups and fixes

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 6:04 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> I've tried making access_ok mask the parameter it gets.

PLEASE don't do this.

Just use "copy_to/from_user()".

We have had lots of bugs because code bitrots.

And no, the access_ok() checks aren't expensive, not even in a loop.
They *used* to be somewhat expensive compared to the access, but that
simply isn't true any more. The real expense in copy_to_user and
friends are in the user access bit setting (STAC and CLAC on x86),
which easily an order of magnitude more expensive than access_ok().

So just get rid of the double-underscore version. It's basically
always a mis-optimization due to entirely historical reasons. I can
pretty much guarantee that it's not visible in profiles.

                  Linus