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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230111123736.20025-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20230111123736.20025-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <Y8gVJUDEFE5U7xAq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <Y8gVJUDEFE5U7xAq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 07:59:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj4PDt_73n5rG9obkXrRQFcxN8vUhG6T9DipxozybH9_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv14 01/17] x86/mm: Rework address range check in get_user()
 and put_user()
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.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>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@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>,
        Bharata B Rao <bharata@amd.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 7:50 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:37:20PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > If an address with bit 63 set is passed down, it will trigger a #GP
> > exception. _ASM_EXTABLE_UA() complains about this. Replace it with
> > plain _ASM_EXTABLE() as it is expected behaviour now.
>
> here I don't. The new logic basically squishes every kernel address to
> -1L -- a known unmapped address, but getting that address in
> {get,put}_user() is still a fail, right?
>
> We used to manually branch to bad_get_user when outside TASK_SIZE_MAX,
> now we rely on #GP.
>
> So why silence it?

We don't silence it - for a kernel address that turns into an all-ones
address, the the _ASM_EXTABLE() will still cause the -EFAULT due to
the page fault.

But it's not the high bit set case that is the problem here.

The problem is a "positive" address that is non-canonical.

Testing against TASK_SIZE_MAX would catch non-canonical addresses
before the access, and we'd return -EFAULT.

But now that we don't test against TASK_SIZE_MAX any more,
non-canonical accesses will cause a GP fault, and *that* message is
what we want to silence.

We'll still return -EFAULT, of course, we're just getting rid of the

        WARN_ONCE(trapnr == X86_TRAP_GP,
                "General protection fault in user access.
Non-canonical address?");

issue that comes from not being so exact about the address limit any more.

                 Linus