[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sgdixzi0.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:05:43 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/dumpstack: Dump user space code correctly again
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 07:54:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Make sure userspace isn't trying to trick us into dumping kernel
>> + * memory by pointing the userspace instruction pointer at it.
>> + */
>> + if (__chk_range_not_ok(src, nbytes, TASK_SIZE_MAX))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + return copy_from_user_nmi(buf, (void __user *)src, nbytes);
>
> copy_from_user_nmi already contains a:
>
> if (__range_not_ok(from, n, TASK_SIZE))
> return n;
>
> what is the reason it checks for TASK_SIZE vs TASK_SIZE_MAX, and why
> do we need both checks?
TBH, I just kept it because being lazy. But you are right, the check is
redundant and TASK_SIZE_MAX is inaccurate as it does not take compat
tasks into account. I'll rip that out.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists