Message-ID: <5660C0D4.8050800@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 14:23:16 -0800
From: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
CC: davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH] sparc64/gup: check address scope legitimacy
References: <1448490684-17171-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <1448491543-17946-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linaro.org> <20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151203203809.GA15235@ravnborg.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2665
Lines: 80

On 12/3/2015 12:38 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi Yang.
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>> Check if user address is accessible in atomic version __get_user_pages_fast()
>> before walking the page table.
>> And, check if end > start in get_user_pages_fast(), otherwise fallback to slow
>> path.
>
> Two different but related things in one patch is often a bad thing.
> It would have been better to split it up.
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> Just found slow_irqon label is not defined, added it to avoid compile error.
>>
>>   arch/sparc/mm/gup.c | 7 ++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c b/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
>> index 2e5c4fc..cf4fb47 100644
>> --- a/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
>> +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/gup.c
>> @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
>>   	addr = start;
>>   	len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>   	end = start + len;
>> +	if (unlikely(!access_ok(write ? VERIFY_WRITE : VERIFY_READ,
>> +					(void __user *)start, len)))
>> +		return 0;
> This change is not justified.
> Why would we take the time to first do the access_ok() stuff.
> If this had been an expensive operation then we had made this function
> slower in the normal case ( assuming there were no access violations in the
> normal case).
> When I look at the implementation of access_ok() I get the impression that
> this is not really a check we need.
>
> access_ok() always returns 1.

Thanks for pointing it out. And, I didn't notice that gup is just built 
for SPARC64. I though it is built by both 64 bit and 32 bit.

A follow-up question, is there any reason to just have sparc specific 
fast gup for 64 bit not for 32 bit?

>
>
>>
>>   	local_irq_save(flags);
>>   	pgdp = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
>> @@ -203,6 +206,8 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
>>   	addr = start;
>>   	len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>   	end = start + len;
>> +	if (end < start)
>> +		goto slow_irqon;
>
> end can only be smaller than start if there is some overflow.
> See how end is calculated just the line above.
>
> This looks like a highly suspicious change.

I'm supposed this is used to protect the overflow. I copied the code 
from other arch. Actually, every arch has this except sparc.

Thanks,
Yang

>
> 	Sam
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/