[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99b572a5-6a98-d22a-01f1-8bab60e96155@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@...el.com, aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pkeys: add check for pkey "overflow"
On 1/22/20 10:51 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * This code should only be called with valid 'pkey'
>> + * values originating from in-kernel users. Complain
>> + * if a bad value is observed.
>> + */
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(pkey >= arch_max_pkey());
> Should not we rather abort this operation and exit with EINVAL
> or something similar instead of calling wrmsr with overflowed
> value? IOW,
>
> if (pkey >= arch_max_pkey()) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
I don't feel strongly about it. The reason I didn't do that is to
minimize the chance that this would cause any functional regression.
It's not a huge chance, but I've certainly fat-fingered my share of
off-by-one bugs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists