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: <CAAH8bW_wL7=7+Jj6vXmQSe_az0BvS_otxhBe4LOKU5fcJV9aXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:56:16 -0800
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Alexey Klimov <aklimov@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmap(): don't allow invalid pages

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 7:37 PM Anshuman Khandual
<anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/19/22 10:52 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> >> Why should not this just scan over the entire user provided struct page
> >> array and make sure that all pages there in are valid via above method,
> >> but in vmap() itself before calling vmap_pages_range(). Because seems
> >> like a single invalid page detected in vmap_pages_pte_range() will
> >> anyways abort the entire vmap(). This will also enable us to drop the
> >> existing NULL check above.
> >
> > I can do this, but why is it any better than the current approach?
>
> Because it will just return on the first instance where the valid page
> check fails, saving us some CPU cycles and an incomplete mapping ?

This should normally never happen, that's why warn_on() is there. If it
happens, there is a serious problem, and the code must be fixed. So,
no CPU cycles saving in real life.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ