[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <81ea4e77-90a4-4fd9-2bc8-135e0da30044@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:07:45 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 04/12] mm, arm64: untag user pointers passed to memory
syscalls
On 2/22/19 4:53 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> @@ -578,6 +578,7 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len,
> SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> unsigned long, prot)
> {
> + start = untagged_addr(start);
> return do_mprotect_pkey(start, len, prot, -1);
> }
>
> @@ -586,6 +587,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pkey_mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> unsigned long, prot, int, pkey)
> {
> + start = untagged_addr(start);
> return do_mprotect_pkey(start, len, prot, pkey);
> }
This seems to have taken the approach of going as close as possible to
the syscall boundary and untagging the pointer there. I guess that's
OK, but it does lead to more churn than necessary. For instance, why
not just do the untagging in do_mprotect_pkey()?
I think that's an overall design question. I kinda asked the same thing
about patching call sites vs. VMA lookup functions.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists