Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 03:42:57 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 5/8] x86/uaccess: Provide untagged_addr() and remove
 tags before address check
Message-ID: <20220629004257.x3pyoydmtk2lhrnx@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220610143527.22974-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220610143527.22974-6-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <53d41f54-28ad-023c-537f-281cc2c40ae9@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53d41f54-28ad-023c-537f-281cc2c40ae9@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:40:48PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 6/10/22 07:35, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > untagged_addr() is a helper used by the core-mm to strip tag bits and
> > get the address to the canonical shape. In only handles userspace
> > addresses. The untagging mask is stored in mmu_context and will be set
> > on enabling LAM for the process.
> > 
> > The tags must not be included into check whether it's okay to access the
> > userspace address.
> > 
> > Strip tags in access_ok().
> 
> What is the intended behavior for an access that spans a tag boundary?

You mean if 'addr' passed to access_ok() is below 47- or 56-bit but 'addr'
+ 'size' overflows into tags? If is not valid access and the current
implementation works correctly.

> Also, at the risk of a potentially silly question, why do we need to strip
> the tag before access_ok()?  With LAM, every valid tagged user address is
> also a valid untagged address, right?  (There is no particular need to
> enforce the actual value of TASK_SIZE_MAX on *access*, just on mmap.)
> 
> IOW, wouldn't it be sufficient, and probably better than what we have now,
> to just check that the entire range has the high bit clear?

No. We do things to addresses on kernel side beyond dereferencing them.
Like comparing addresses have to make sense. find_vma() has to find
relevant mapping and so on. 

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov