linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 05/19] iov_iter: Introduce fault_in_iov_iter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87o89hgqdq.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Sun, 29 Aug 2021 00:23:45 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/19] iov_iter: Introduce fault_in_iov_iter_writeable

On Sat, Aug 28 2021 at 22:04, Al Viro wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 11:47:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>>   /* Try to handle #PF, but anything else is fatal. */
>>   if (ret != -EFAULT)
>>      return -EINVAL;
>
>> which all end up in user_insn(). user_insn() returns 0 or the negated
>> trap number, which results in -EFAULT for #PF, but for #MC the negated
>> trap number is -18 i.e. != -EFAULT. IOW, there is no endless loop.
>> 
>> This used to be a problem before commit:
>> 
>>   aee8c67a4faa ("x86/fpu: Return proper error codes from user access functions")
>> 
>> and as the changelog says the initial reason for this was #GP going into
>> the fault path, but I'm pretty sure that I also discussed the #MC angle with
>> Borislav back then. Should have added some more comments there
>> obviously.
>
> ... or at least have that check spelled
>
> 	if (ret != -X86_TRAP_PF)
> 		return -EINVAL;
>
> Unless I'm misreading your explanation, that is...

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.