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:   Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:51:11 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@intel.com, aubrey.li@linux.intel.com,
        dave.hansen@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pkeys: add check for pkey "overflow"
Message-ID: <20200122185111.GK2437@uranus>
References: <20200122165346.AD4DA150@viggo.jf.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200122165346.AD4DA150@viggo.jf.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 08:53:46AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> Alex Shi reported the pkey macros above arch_set_user_pkey_access()
> to be unused.  They are unused, and even refer to a nonexistent
> CONFIG option.
> 
> @@ -922,6 +920,13 @@ int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct tas
>  	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * This code should only be called with valid 'pkey'
> +	 * values originating from in-kernel users.  Complain
> +	 * if a bad value is observed.
> +	 */
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(pkey >= arch_max_pkey());

Should not we rather abort this operation and exit with EINVAL
or something similar instead of calling wrmsr with overflowed
value? IOW,

	if (pkey >= arch_max_pkey()) {
		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
		return -EINVAL;
	}