[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yt9dk0o1inzu.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 12:55:01 +0200
From: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kfence: only handle kernel mode faults
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> writes:
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 11:22, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> mm/kfence/core.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/kfence/core.c b/mm/kfence/core.c
>> index bc15e3cb71d5..161df492750c 100644
>> --- a/mm/kfence/core.c
>> +++ b/mm/kfence/core.c
>> @@ -813,6 +813,9 @@ bool kfence_handle_page_fault(unsigned long addr, bool is_write, struct pt_regs
>> enum kfence_error_type error_type;
>> unsigned long flags;
>>
>> + if (user_mode(regs))
>> + return false;
>> +
>
> I don't think it's required on all architectures, correct? If so, I
> think this should be part of the arch-specific code, i.e. just do "if
> (user_mode(regs) && kfence_handle_page_fault(...))" or similar.
> Because otherwise we'll wonder in future why we ever needed this, and
> e.g. determine it's useless and remove it again. ;-) Either that, or a
> comment. But I'd prefer to just keep it in the arch-specific code if
> required, because it seems to be the exception rather than the norm.
Ok, that's fine, i add it to our code then.
Thanks
Sven
Powered by blists - more mailing lists