linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/16] mm: simplify gup_fast

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:   Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:02:10 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] mm: simplify gup_fast_permitted

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:08 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> The new code has no test at all for "nr_pages == 0", afaik.

Note that it really is important to check for that, because right now we do

        if (gup_fast_permitted(start, nr_pages)) {
                local_irq_save(flags);
                gup_pgd_range(start, end, write ? FOLL_WRITE : 0, pages, &nr);
                local_irq_restore(flags);
        }

and that gup_pgd_range() function *depends* on the range being
non-zero, and does

        pgdp = pgd_offset(current->mm, addr);
        do {
                pgd_t pgd = READ_ONCE(*pgdp);
...
        } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != end);

Note how a zero range would turn into an infinite range here.

And the only check for 0 was that

        if (nr_pages <= 0)
                return 0;

in get_user_pages_fast() that you removed.

(Admittedly, it would be much better to have that check in
__get_user_pages_fast() itself, because we do have callers that call
the double-underscore version)

Now, I sincerely hope that we don't have anybody that passes in a zero
nr_pages (or a negative one), but we do actually have a comment saying
it's ok.

Note that the check for "if (end < start)" not only does not check for
0, it also doesn't really check for negative. It checks for
_overflow_. Admittedly most negative values would be expected to
overflow, but it's still a very different issue.

Maybe you added the check for negative somewhere else (in another
patch), but I don't see it.

                Linus