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:   Tue, 23 May 2023 14:07:55 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@ispras.ru>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
        joey.gouly@arm.com, mhocko@suse.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        peterx@redhat.com, broonie@kernel.org, szabolcs.nagy@arm.com,
        kpsingh@kernel.org, gthelen@google.com, toiwoton@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: Make PR_MDWE_REFUSE_EXEC_GAIN an unsigned long
Message-ID: <ZGy6q7v+7jsXb1bV@arm.com>
References: <20230517150321.2890206-1-revest@chromium.org>
 <20230517150321.2890206-4-revest@chromium.org>
 <bb08b91c-6c7b-a7a0-d4a7-68ddea46277f@redhat.com>
 <884d131bbc28ebfa0b729176e6415269@ispras.ru>
 <d7e3749c-a718-df94-92af-1cb0fecab772@redhat.com>
 <3c2e210b75bd56909322e8a3e5086d91@ispras.ru>
 <c63053b0-5797-504d-7896-c86271b64162@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c63053b0-5797-504d-7896-c86271b64162@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:12:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Also, how is passing "0"s to e.g., PR_GET_THP_DISABLE reliable? We need arg2
> -> arg5 to be 0. But wouldn't the following also just pass a 0 "int" ?
> 
> prctl(PR_GET_THP_DISABLE, 0, 0, 0, 0)
> 
> I'm easily confused by such (va_args) things, so sorry for the dummy
> questions.

Isn't the prctl() prototype in the user headers defined with the first
argument as int while the rest as unsigned long? At least from the man
page:

int prctl(int option, unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
	  unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5);

So there are no va_args tricks (which confuse me as well).

Any int passed to arg[2-5] would be converted by the compiler to an
unsigned long before being passed to the kernel. So I think the change
in this patch is harmless as the conversion is happening anyway.

(well, unless I completely missed what the problem is)

-- 
Catalin