[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjP8ysEZnNFi_+E1ZEFGpcbAN8kbYHrCnC93TX6XX+jEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 19:43:24 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] maccess: remove strncpy_from_unsafe
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:00 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > But we should likely at least disallow it entirely on platforms where
> > we really can't - or pick one hardcoded choice. On sparc, you really
> > _have_ to specify one or the other.
>
> OK. BTW, is there any way to detect the kernel/user space overlap on
> memory layout statically? If there, I can do it. (I don't like
> "if (CONFIG_X86)" thing....)
> Or, maybe we need CONFIG_ARCH_OVERLAP_ADDRESS_SPACE?
I think it would be better to have a CONFIG variable that
architectures can just 'select' to show that they are ok with separate
kernel and user addresses.
Because I don't think we have any way to say that right now as-is. You
can probably come up with hacky ways to approximate it, ie something
like
if (TASK_SIZE_MAX > PAGE_OFFSET)
.... they overlap ..
which would almost work, but..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists