linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] uaccess: Add __user_write_access

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjXGvUnmN5ZL3nhj_J0cbiVfeHsM9Z54A55rgHRUaVOfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:37:27 -1000
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, 
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, 
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] uaccess: Add __user_write_access_begin().

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 at 14:05, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> unsafe_put_user() can be used to save a stac/clac pair, but
> masked_user_access_begin() or user_access_begin() introduces
> an unnecessary address masking or access_ok().
>
> Add a low-level helper for such a use case.

I really suspect that you cannot actually measure the cost of the
extra masking, and would be much happier if you just used a regular
"user_access_begin()" (perhaps the "user_write_access_begin()"
variant).

The masking is very cheap - literally just a couple of ALU
instructions. And unless you can actually measure some real advantage
of avoiding it, let's not add another helper to this area.

We spent a fair amount of time undoing years of "__get_user()" and
"__put_user()" cases that didn't actually help, and sometimes only
made it hard to see where the actual user pointer validation was done.

               Linus