[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61b9a880a6424a34b841cf3dddb463ad@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:13:22 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 10/10] powerpc: remove address space overrides using
set_fs()
From: Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: 02 September 2020 13:37
>
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:15:12AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >> - return 0;
> >> - return (size == 0 || size - 1 <= seg.seg - addr);
> >> + if (addr >= TASK_SIZE_MAX)
> >> + return false;
> >> + if (size == 0)
> >> + return false;
> >
> > __access_ok() was returning true when size == 0 up to now. Any reason to
> > return false now ?
>
> No, this is accidental and broken. Can you re-run your benchmark with
> this fixed?
Is TASK_SIZE_MASK defined such that you can do:
return (addr | size) < TASK_SIZE_MAX) || !size;
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists