[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+ydurtkoVtvyoQdfcXuR3ZnZ+=ixoZkXEFRTZARg+GtRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 18:47:37 +0100
From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: 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 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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 07/12] fs, arm64: untag user pointers in fs/userfaultfd.c
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:37 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/19 8:59 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> So, we have to patch all these sites before the tagged values get to the
> >>> point of hitting the vma lookup functions. Dumb question: Why don't we
> >>> just patch the vma lookup functions themselves instead of all of these
> >>> callers?
> >> That might be a working approach as well. We'll still need to fix up
> >> places where the vma fields are accessed directly. Catalin, what do
> >> you think?
> > Most callers of find_vma*() always follow it by a check of
> > vma->vma_start against some tagged address ('end' in the
> > userfaultfd_(un)register()) case. So it's not sufficient to untag it in
> > find_vma().
>
> If that's truly the common case, sounds like we should have a find_vma()
> that does the vma_end checking as well. Then at least the common case
> would not have to worry about tagging.
It seems that a lot of find_vma() callers indeed do different kinds of
checking/subtractions of vma->vma_start and a tagged address, which
look hardly unifiable. So untagging the addresses in find_vma()
callers looks like a more suitable solution.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists