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:   Sat, 28 Mar 2020 11:48:57 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/22] x86 user stack frame reads: switch to
 explicit __get_user()
Message-ID: <20200328104857.GA93574@gmail.com>
References: <20200323183620.GD23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20200323183819.250124-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200323183819.250124-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> 
> rather than relying upon the magic in raw_copy_from_user()

> -		bytes = __copy_from_user_nmi(&frame.next_frame, fp, 4);
> -		if (bytes != 0)
> +		if (__get_user(frame.next_frame, &fp->next_frame))
>  			break;
> -		bytes = __copy_from_user_nmi(&frame.return_address, fp+4, 4);
> -		if (bytes != 0)
> +		if (__get_user(frame.return_address, &fp->return_address))
>  			break;

Just wondering about the long term plan here: we have unsafe_get_user() 
as a wrapper around __get_user(), but the __get_user() API doesn't carry 
the 'unsafe' tag yet.

Should we add an __unsafe_get_user() alias to it perhaps, and use it in 
all code that adds it, like the chunk above? Or rename it to 
__unsafe_get_user() outright? No change to the logic, but it would be 
more obvious what code has inherited old __get_user() uses and which code 
uses __unsafe_get_user() intentionally.

Even after your series there's 700 uses of __get_user(), so it would make 
sense to make a distinction in name at least and tag all unsafe APIs with 
an 'unsafe_' prefix.

Thanks,

	Ingo