[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230329160322.GA4477@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:03:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>,
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 03/29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> 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.
Say, arch/loongarch defines TASK_SIZE which depends on test_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT_ADDR)
but it doesn't define TASK_SIZE_MAX, so __access_ok() will use TASK_SIZE.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists