linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: fix access_ok() and valid_user_address() using wrong USER_PTR

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: <20251106133649.GEaQykcT0XXJ_SDE4P@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 14:36:49 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, brauner@...nel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, pfalcato@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: fix access_ok() and valid_user_address() using
 wrong USER_PTR_MAX in modules

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 02:19:06PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> Then, as I pointed out, you should be protesting the patching of
> USER_PTR_MAX as it came with no benchmarks

That came in as a security fix. I'd say correctness before performance. And if
anyone finds a better and faster fix and can prove it, I'm all ears.

> and also resulted in a regression.

Oh well, shit happens on a daily basis. And then we fix it and move on.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette