[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <9a456346-e207-44e1-873e-40d21334e01b@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:41:21 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Gregory Price" <gourry.memverge@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, avagin@...il.com,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>, krisman@...labora.com,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>, tongtiangen@...wei.com,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"Gregory Price" <gregory.price@...verge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 1/4] asm-generic,arm64: create task variant of access_ok
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, at 17:15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> This look as if access_ok() or __access_ok() doesn't depend on task, but
> this is not true in general. Say, TASK_SIZE_MAX can check is_32bit_task()
> test_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT...) and this uses "current".
>
> Again, we probably do not care, but I don't like the fact task_access_ok()
> looks as if task_access_ok(task) returns the same result as "task" calling
> access_ok().
I think the idea of TASK_SIZE_MAX is that it is a compile-time constant and in fact independent of current, while TASK_SIZE
takes TIF_32BIT into account.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists