Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Message-ID: <438a8b44-ea5f-4e13-bd7e-e1c2e2a481c4@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 09:36:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tee: Use iov_iter to better support shared buffer
 registration
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231129164439.1130903-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
 <CAFA6WYP=_BPt_x1FxeVdAdB_mMjdz8QzvkfFXx-5msy8PZG6nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <60b67bd5-36c3-4318-9a2b-bcf172681d45@foss.st.com>
 <CAFA6WYN9eJ1vGTKfGXy7M709=aGkg1oF3odK7iGRUBokbKtqzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <40902a86-3b88-45bc-bb6f-2de0eb48dc9d@foss.st.com>
 <CAFA6WYPGkpVN-XP7eAzLXMReRi7FBp3boKzhMfasasuE=XWBow@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <CAFA6WYPGkpVN-XP7eAzLXMReRi7FBp3boKzhMfasasuE=XWBow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/4/23 5:42 AM, Sumit Garg wrote:
> IMO, access_ok() should be the first thing that import_ubuf() or
> import_single_range() should do, something as follows:
> 
> diff --git a/lib/iov_iter.c b/lib/iov_iter.c
> index 8ff6824a1005..4aee0371824c 100644
> --- a/lib/iov_iter.c
> +++ b/lib/iov_iter.c
> @@ -1384,10 +1384,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(import_single_range);
> 
>  int import_ubuf(int rw, void __user *buf, size_t len, struct iov_iter *i)
>  {
> -       if (len > MAX_RW_COUNT)
> -               len = MAX_RW_COUNT;
>         if (unlikely(!access_ok(buf, len)))
>                 return -EFAULT;
> +       if (len > MAX_RW_COUNT)
> +               len = MAX_RW_COUNT;
> 
>         iov_iter_ubuf(i, rw, buf, len);
>         return 0;
> 
> Jens A., Al Viro,
> 
> Was there any particular reason which I am unaware of to perform
> access_ok() check on modified input length?

This change makes sense to me, and seems consistent with what is done
elsewhere too.

-- 
Jens Axboe