[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230329171322.GB4477@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:13:22 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 1/4] asm-generic,arm64: create task variant of
access_ok
On 03/28, Gregory Price wrote:
>
> Not sure how I should proceed here,
Can't we just kill this access_ok() in set_syscall_user_dispatch() ?
I don't think it buys too much.
Oleg.
diff --git a/kernel/entry/syscall_user_dispatch.c b/kernel/entry/syscall_user_dispatch.c
index 0b6379adff6b..d2e516ece52b 100644
--- a/kernel/entry/syscall_user_dispatch.c
+++ b/kernel/entry/syscall_user_dispatch.c
@@ -43,11 +43,7 @@ bool syscall_user_dispatch(struct pt_regs *regs)
return false;
if (likely(sd->selector)) {
- /*
- * access_ok() is performed once, at prctl time, when
- * the selector is loaded by userspace.
- */
- if (unlikely(__get_user(state, sd->selector))) {
+ if (unlikely(get_user(state, sd->selector))) {
force_exit_sig(SIGSEGV);
return true;
}
@@ -86,9 +82,6 @@ int set_syscall_user_dispatch(unsigned long mode, unsigned long offset,
if (offset && offset + len <= offset)
return -EINVAL;
- if (selector && !access_ok(selector, sizeof(*selector)))
- return -EFAULT;
-
break;
default:
return -EINVAL;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists