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, 18 Jan 2023 17:48:59 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.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
Subject: Re: [PATCHv14 01/17] x86/mm: Rework address range check in
 get_user() and put_user()
Message-ID: <Y8gi+/Y0qcjtRf6m@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230111123736.20025-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20230111123736.20025-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <Y8gVJUDEFE5U7xAq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=wj4PDt_73n5rG9obkXrRQFcxN8vUhG6T9DipxozybH9_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wj4PDt_73n5rG9obkXrRQFcxN8vUhG6T9DipxozybH9_w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 07:59:21AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 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.

Yes, and the explicit bad_get_user jump would not print the message and
now with _UA removed it won't either (I seem to have my wires crossed
just now).

> 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.

Right, but I was thinking that we'd explicitly allowed those because
with LAM enabled we'd actually accept those addresses.

> 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.

Ah indeed, so for !LAM we'd now print the message were we would not
before (the whole TASK_SIZE_MAX+ range).

OK, agreed.