linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/mm: check base flags in ioremap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <87fsukzix2.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Sat, 04 Sep 2021 21:20:25 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Nanyong Sun <sunnanyong@...wei.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        christophe.leroy@....fr
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        wangkefeng 00584194 <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/mm: check base flags in ioremap_prot

Nanyong Sun <sunnanyong@...wei.com> writes:
> On 2021/9/3 17:16, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 03/09/2021 à 11:03, Nanyong Sun a écrit :
>>> Some drivers who call ioremap_prot without setting base flags like
>>> ioremap_prot(addr, len, 0) may work well before
>>> commit 56f3c1413f5c ("powerpc/mm: properly set PAGE_KERNEL flags in
>>> ioremap()"), but now they will get a virtual address "successfully"
>>> from ioremap_prot and badly fault on memory access later because that
>>> patch also dropped the hack adding of base flags for ioremap_prot.
>>>
>>> So return NULL and throw a warning if the caller of ioremap_prot did
>>> not set base flags properly. Why not just hack adding PAGE_KERNEL flags
>>> in the ioremap_prot, because most scenarios can be covered by high level
>>> functions like ioremap(), ioremap_coherent(), ioremap_cache()...
>>> so it is better to keep max flexibility for this low level api.
>>
>> As far as I can see, there is no user of this fonction that sets flags 
>> to 0 in the kernel tree.
>>
>> Did you find any ? If you did, I think it is better to fix the caller.
>>
>> Christophe
>>
> I see some vendor's drivers which are not on upstream ...

Sorry, but we don't carry extraneous checks in upstream for the sake of
out-of-tree drivers.

cheers