[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201027000920.GE3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:09:20 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix compat regression in process_vm_rw()
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 06:03:18PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> The removal of compat_process_vm_{readv,writev} didn't change
> process_vm_rw(), which always assumes it's not doing a compat syscall.
> Instead of passing in 'false' unconditionally for 'compat', make it
> conditional on in_compat_syscall().
>
> Fixes: c3973b401ef2 ("mm: remove compat_process_vm_{readv,writev}")
> Reported-by: Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
ACK with some reservations - I suspect that we want an explicit flag
for process_vm_{read,write}v() that would force the 64bit layout for
the vector refering to the foreign process. It's not relevant for
regression fix; however, as it is these syscalls are not usable for
32bit process trying to access memory of 64bit one - there's no way
to specify the addresses past 4G.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists