Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753332AbeAQOR6 (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:17:58 -0500
Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:53955 "EHLO mga09.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752343AbeAQORz (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:17:55 -0500
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,372,1511856000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="166826348"
Message-ID: <1516198646.4184.13.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] x86: use __uaccess_begin_nospec and ASM_IFENCE
 in get_user paths
From: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:17:26 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxB01XEEpdPynwYmzQMfTJdJnUrN+ZLqSV_UdnKLBgAZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <151586744180.5820.13215059696964205856.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
         <151586748981.5820.14559543798744763404.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
         <CA+55aFzoAR+MYX+ub0xZ32OsT7WtD5Kru2t6LhwB1buLWPResQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <CA+55aFxsg5+u7bCHj1N8xyyVf7-RMm-5ACNp=ENNrKL78omaow@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAPcyv4hfUx8gLScuNewY3+BWi4YBS_Z9dhvYf1D+WEWDDCShXA@mail.gmail.com>
         <CA+55aFxAFG5czVmCyhYMyHmXLNJ7pcXxWzusjZvLRh_qTGHj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
         <CA+55aFxB01XEEpdPynwYmzQMfTJdJnUrN+ZLqSV_UdnKLBgAZw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Corporation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 (3.24.6-1.fc26) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 14:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jan 16, 2018 14:23, "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > That said, for get_user specifically, can we do something even
> > cheaper. Dave H. reminds me that any valid user pointer that gets
> > past
> > the address limit check will have the high bit clear. So instead of
> > calculating a mask, just unconditionally clear the high bit. It
> > seems
> > worse case userspace can speculatively leak something that's
> > already
> > in its address space.
> 
> That's not at all true.
> 
> The address may be a kernel address. That's the whole point of
> 'set_fs()'.

Can we kill off the remaining users of set_fs() ?

Alan