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 22:29:44 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pkeys: add check for pkey "overflow"
Message-ID: <20200122192944.GL2437@uranus>
References: <20200122165346.AD4DA150@viggo.jf.intel.com>
 <20200122185111.GK2437@uranus>
 <99b572a5-6a98-d22a-01f1-8bab60e96155@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <99b572a5-6a98-d22a-01f1-8bab60e96155@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 11:09:47AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 1/22/20 10:51 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * 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;
> > 	}
> 
> I don't feel strongly about it.  The reason I didn't do that is to
> minimize the chance that this would cause any functional regression.

OK, I don't mind leaving just WARN_ON_ONCE.

> 
> It's not a huge chance, but I've certainly fat-fingered my share of
> off-by-one bugs.

Heh :)