[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <306b1b09-487a-9ccd-4a63-8c78889492c6@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:17:58 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, x86@...nel.org,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -next V3 4/6] arm64: add copy_{to, from}_user to
machine check safe
On 12/04/2022 6:08 pm, Robin Murphy wrote:
[...]
>> @@ -62,7 +63,11 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(__arch_copy_from_user)
>> ret
>> // Exception fixups
>> -9997: cmp dst, dstin
>> +9997: mrs esr, esr_el1 // Check exception first
>> + and esr, esr, #ESR_ELx_FSC
>> + cmp esr, #ESR_ELx_FSC_EXTABT
>
> Should we be checking EC to make sure it's a data abort - and thus FSC
> is valid - in the first place? I'm a little fuzzy on all the possible
> paths into fixup_exception(), and it's not entirely obvious whether this
> is actually safe or not.
In fact, thinking some more about that, I don't think there should be
any need for this sort of logic in these handlers at all. The
fixup_exception() machinery should already know enough about the
exception that's happened and the extable entry to figure this out and
not bother calling the handler at all.
Thanks,
Robin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists