Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] x86: kvm_hv_set_msr(): use __put_user() instead of
 32bit __clear_user()
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20200528234025.GT23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20200529232723.44942-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20200529232723.44942-8-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=wgq2dzOdN4_=eY-XwxmcgyBM_esnPtXCvz1zStZKjiHKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200530143147.GN23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <81563af6-6ea2-3e21-fe53-9955910e303a@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 30 May 2020 18:20:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200530143147.GN23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 04:52:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> It looks like the argument for the address being validated is that it
>> comes from "gfn_to_hva()", which should only return
>> host-virtual-addresses. That may be true.

Yes, the access_ok is done in __kvm_set_memory_region and gfn_to_hva()
returns a page-aligned address so it's obviously ok for a u32.

But I have no objections to removing the __ because if a read or write
is in the hot path it will use kvm_write_guest_cached and similar.

Paolo

>> But "should" is not "does", and honestly, the cost of gfn_to_hva() is
>> high enough that then using that as an argument for removing
>> "access_ok()" smells.