[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 11:32:17 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess speculation
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 1:48 AM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> This would error requests for address 0 earlier - but I don't
> believe they are ever valid in Linux.
> (Some historic x86 a.out formats did load to address 0.)
Not only loading at address 0 - there are various real reason s why
address 0 might actually be needed.
Anybody who still runs a 32-bit kernel and wants to use vm86 mode, for
example, requires address 0 because that's simply how the hardware
works.
So no. "mask to zero and make zero invalid" is not a proper model.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists