[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVDMhpA-oJnpuEP2j21aK5ZosW2PNskVDxm4MSR6Afqug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 20:38:03 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access
kernel memory that can fault
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 4:44 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:47:46 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Since kprobes handler runs in IRQ context, we can not use access_ok() in it.
> > (only on x86 + CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y)
>
> Is it really IRQ context or exception context? That is, one
> (interrupts) happen for any task, but exceptions happen because of the
> software that is executed (like a breakpoint). Although you can have a
> kprobe trigger in an interrupt handler (where user access wouldn't make
> sense anyway). But there should be no problem with user access from an
> exception handler.
>
Can we just get rid of this might_sleep()? access_ok() doesn't sleep
as far as I know.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists