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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1550839937.git.andreyknvl@google.com> <3875fa863b755d8cb43afa7bb0fe543e5fd05a5d.1550839937.git.andreyknvl@google.com>
 <81ea4e77-90a4-4fd9-2bc8-135e0da30044@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <81ea4e77-90a4-4fd9-2bc8-135e0da30044@intel.com>
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:41:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAeHK+z2qw__Kpeih2mEyhVJ-gbor1vYsOZddT5E71JDiSg7pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 04/12] mm, arm64: untag user pointers passed to memory syscalls
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>,
        Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@arm.com>,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
        Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@arm.com>,
        Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@arm.com>,
        Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:07 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/22/19 4:53 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -578,6 +578,7 @@ static int do_mprotect_pkey(unsigned long start, size_t len,
> >  SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> >               unsigned long, prot)
> >  {
> > +     start = untagged_addr(start);
> >       return do_mprotect_pkey(start, len, prot, -1);
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -586,6 +587,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> >  SYSCALL_DEFINE4(pkey_mprotect, unsigned long, start, size_t, len,
> >               unsigned long, prot, int, pkey)
> >  {
> > +     start = untagged_addr(start);
> >       return do_mprotect_pkey(start, len, prot, pkey);
> >  }
>
> This seems to have taken the approach of going as close as possible to
> the syscall boundary and untagging the pointer there.  I guess that's
> OK, but it does lead to more churn than necessary.  For instance, why
> not just do the untagging in do_mprotect_pkey()?

I think that makes more sense, will do in the next version, thanks!

>
> I think that's an overall design question.  I kinda asked the same thing
> about patching call sites vs. VMA lookup functions.

Replied in the other thread.