Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 17 Feb 2019 00:02:37 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        baloo@gandi.net, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pascal Bouchareine <pascal@gandi.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: uaccess: fix regression in unsafe_get_user
Message-ID: <20190217000237.GQ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20190215235901.23541-1-baloo@gandi.net>
 <CAG48ez2tYizTKncevLF=AMQ2nm3D=SqGHH5bM5f-U0fhQ1nL9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902161358160.1683@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <4F2693EA-1553-4F09-9475-781305540DBC@amacapital.net>
 <20190216234702.GP2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190216234702.GP2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:47:02PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 02:50:15PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> > What is the actual problem?  We’re not actually demand-faulting this data, are we?  Are we just overrunning the buffer because the from_user helpers are too clever?  Can we fix it for real by having the fancy helpers do *aligned* loads so that they don’t overrun the buffer?  Heck, this might be faster, too.
> 
> Unaligned _stores_ are not any cheaper, and you'd get one hell of
> extra arithmetics from trying to avoid both.  Check something
> like e.g. memcpy() on alpha, where you really have to keep all
> accesses aligned, both on load and on store side.
> 
> Can't we just pad the buffers a bit?  Making sure that name_buf
> and symlink_buf are _not_ followed by unmapped pages shouldn't
> be hard.  Both are allocated by kmalloc(), so...
> 
> What am I missing here?

... the fact that read_info() might skip copying if everything it
wants is already in the buffer passed by decompressor ;-/  It's
been a while since I looked into that code...