[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250604184855.44793208@p-imbrenda>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:48:55 +0200
From: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Janosch Frank
<frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/mm: Fix in_atomic() handling in
do_secure_storage_access()
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 18:27:49 +0200
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 03:49:36PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> > index 3829521450dd..e1ad05bfd28a 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> > @@ -441,6 +441,8 @@ void do_secure_storage_access(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > if (rc)
> > BUG();
> > } else {
> > + if (faulthandler_disabled())
> > + return handle_fault_error_nolock(regs, 0);
> >
>
> This could trigger WARN_ON_ONCE() in handle_fault_error_nolock():
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!si_code))
> si_code = SEGV_MAPERR;
>
> Would this warning be justified in this case (aka user_mode(regs) ==
> true)?
I think so, because if we are in usermode, we should never trigger
faulthandler_disabled()
>
> > mm = current->mm;
> > mmap_read_lock(mm);
> > vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists