[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiUf3Eqqz3PttTCBLyDKqwW2sdpeqjL+PuKtip15vDauA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:58:03 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
x86@...nel.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] x86: call instrumentation hooks from copy_mc.c
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:37, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> if (copy_mc_fragile_enabled) {
> __uaccess_begin();
> + instrument_copy_to_user(dst, src, len);
> ret = copy_mc_fragile((__force void *)dst, src, len);
> __uaccess_end();
I'd actually prefer that instrument_copy_to_user() to be *outside* the
__uaccess_begin.
In fact, I'm a bit surprised that objtool didn't complain about it in that form.
__uaccess_begin() causes the CPU to accept kernel accesses to user
mode, and I don't think instrument_copy_to_user() has any business
actually touching user mode memory.
In fact it might be better to rename the function and change the prototype to
instrument_src(src, len);
because you really can't sanely instrument the destination of a user
copy, but "instrument_src()" might be useful in other situations than
just user copies.
Hmm?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists