[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190225114018.4d6b17d4@vmware.local.home>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:40:18 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access
kernel memory that can fault
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:09:45 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > This should probably go with whatever effort makes nmi_uaccess_ok()
> > available on all architectures. That being said, how about just
> > making copy_from_user_nmi() work on all architectures, even if it just
> > fails unconditionally on some of them?
>
> I think even if we have copy_from_user_nmi(), we need something like
> nmi_uaccess_ok() because without it we can not correctly use
> __copy_from_user_inatomic()...
But wouldn't that just be part of the implementation of
"copy_from_user_nmi()" as being in an NMI just assumes being inatomic?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists