Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] powerpc/mm: split store_updates_sp() in two parts in
 do_page_fault()
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
References: <cover.1492606297.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
 <58f17a04cee5726467ef4e283dfbd7da68fa6ab4.1492606298.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
 <871sr23flh.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
From: Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Message-ID: <6daf8f4e-9b39-d585-2c64-9b0348fef123@c-s.fr>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:39:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <871sr23flh.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 931
Lines: 28


Le 02/06/2017 à 11:26, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> writes:
> 
>> Only the get_user() in store_updates_sp() has to be done outside
>> the mm semaphore. All the comparison can be done within the semaphore,
>> so only when really needed.
>>
>> As we got a DSI exception, the address pointed by regs->nip is
>> obviously valid, otherwise we would have had a instruction exception.
>> So __get_user() can be used instead of get_user()
> 
> I don't think that part is true.
> 
> You took a DSI so there *was* an instruction at NIP, but since then it
> may have been unmapped by another thread.
> 
> So I don't think you can assume the get_user() will succeed.
> 

The difference between get_user() and __get_user() is that get_user() 
performs an access_ok() in addition.

Doesn't access_ok() only checks whether addr is below TASK_SIZE to 
ensure it is a valid user address ?

Christophe