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;
Feedback-ID: ie3994620:Fastmail
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 17:31:05 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        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>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@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>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mm/iommu/sva: Do not allow to set
 FORCE_TAGGED_SVA bit from outside
Message-ID: <20230403143105.rj4l5tqn43t3zcnh@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20230403111020.3136-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20230403111020.3136-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <CACT4Y+YoS9e=QVq6iKda5Gv852kVv9OTLaOZ=XCJ65mP0oyAOA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+YoS9e=QVq6iKda5Gv852kVv9OTLaOZ=XCJ65mP0oyAOA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:55:09PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 at 13:10, Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > arch_prctl(ARCH_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA) overrides the default and allows LAM
> > and SVA to co-exist in the process. It is expected by called by the
> > process when it knows what it is doing.
> >
> > arch_prctl() operates on the current process, but the same code is
> > reachable from ptrace where it can be called on arbitrary task.
> >
> > Make it strict and only allow to set MM_CONTEXT_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA for the
> > current process.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > Fixes: 23e5d9ec2bab ("x86/mm/iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVA mutually exclusive")
> > Suggested-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > index c7dfd727c9ec..cefac2d3a9f6 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > @@ -885,6 +885,8 @@ long do_arch_prctl_64(struct task_struct *task, int option, unsigned long arg2)
> >         case ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR:
> >                 return prctl_enable_tagged_addr(task->mm, arg2);
> >         case ARCH_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA:
> > +               if (current != task)
> > +                       return -EINVAL;
> 
> prctl_enable_tagged_addr() checks "task->mm != current->mm".
> Should we check the same here for consistency? Or also change the
> check in prctl_enable_tagged_addr().
> 
> arch_prctl() can only do task==current, so I guess "current != task"
> is a more reasonable check for prctl_enable_tagged_addr() as well.

As of now, prctl_enable_tagged_addr() doesn't have the task on hands. It
gets mm as input, so it cannot check the task directly. But functionally
it is the same check.

I would prefer to keep it this way. Unless anyone feels strongly about it.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov