From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23F1C433E0 for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 01:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE7C20693 for ; Thu, 14 May 2020 01:00:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589418020; bh=iL3qRo6PKMlX7MXjMuhMdIo6UsuawSg8IZnaTVQPWcw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=SbhaHPBo9lN8ynFnYfBjXW++J0artVxqi236oRy2sS2qgyhKag0/Gz1SUVuTnQf0Q SjvWyUAAH2FJosyWvfeMeFJ075/vz1EjFo2pMvF8n4+uIf8yFds2aslZq4d1oCtPOj 1rejweOw6TFCCHQ/1Kkeb4kkPg44IqObAmeH9zZM= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726022AbgENBAP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 21:00:15 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:59754 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725942AbgENBAP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 21:00:15 -0400 Received: from devnote2 (NE2965lan1.rev.em-net.ne.jp [210.141.244.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5F482054F; Thu, 14 May 2020 01:00:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589418014; bh=iL3qRo6PKMlX7MXjMuhMdIo6UsuawSg8IZnaTVQPWcw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=eMXyaK/bX8VY/yTLe5XB8JtMJrtcjjev1fGQABBIMNzXe1l1nVaonllA6Js7jUFE/ roA4DNirFqPNV8zYvxpE5SZpnZrPScPhYauQnT6eTn3ErV59izLzTc8zoDjhqVpUBV xIAKU4KFe9w7hOY+jhok+DYEHeqUtAEj9JByg/IQ= Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 10:00:09 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Christoph Hellwig , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrew Morton , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-um , Netdev , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] maccess: remove strncpy_from_unsafe Message-Id: <20200514100009.a8e6aa001f0ace5553c7904f@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20200513160038.2482415-1-hch@lst.de> <20200513160038.2482415-12-hch@lst.de> <20200513192804.GA30751@lst.de> <0c1a7066-b269-9695-b94a-bb5f4f20ebd8@iogearbox.net> <20200514082054.f817721ce196f134e6820644@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 May 2020 16:59:40 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:21 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > > > For trace_kprobe.c current order (kernel -> user fallback) is preferred > > because it has another function dedicated for user memory. > > Well, then it should just use the "strict" kernel-only one for the > non-user memory. > > But yes, if there are legacy interfaces, then we might want to say > "these continue to work for the legacy case on platforms where we can > tell which kind of pointer it is from the bit pattern". Yes, that was why I changed my mind and send reviewed-by last time. https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200511142716.f1ff6fc55220012982c47fec@kernel.org/ > But we should likely at least disallow it entirely on platforms where > we really can't - or pick one hardcoded choice. On sparc, you really > _have_ to specify one or the other. OK. BTW, is there any way to detect the kernel/user space overlap on memory layout statically? If there, I can do it. (I don't like "if (CONFIG_X86)" thing....) Or, maybe we need CONFIG_ARCH_OVERLAP_ADDRESS_SPACE? Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jZ2ER-0001DX-FN for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 14 May 2020 01:00:16 +0000 Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 10:00:09 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] maccess: remove strncpy_from_unsafe Message-Id: <20200514100009.a8e6aa001f0ace5553c7904f@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20200513160038.2482415-1-hch@lst.de> <20200513160038.2482415-12-hch@lst.de> <20200513192804.GA30751@lst.de> <0c1a7066-b269-9695-b94a-bb5f4f20ebd8@iogearbox.net> <20200514082054.f817721ce196f134e6820644@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Daniel Borkmann , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Netdev , the arch/x86 maintainers , linux-um , Alexei Starovoitov , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux-MM , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig On Wed, 13 May 2020 16:59:40 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:21 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > > > > For trace_kprobe.c current order (kernel -> user fallback) is preferred > > because it has another function dedicated for user memory. > > Well, then it should just use the "strict" kernel-only one for the > non-user memory. > > But yes, if there are legacy interfaces, then we might want to say > "these continue to work for the legacy case on platforms where we can > tell which kind of pointer it is from the bit pattern". Yes, that was why I changed my mind and send reviewed-by last time. https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200511142716.f1ff6fc55220012982c47fec@kernel.org/ > But we should likely at least disallow it entirely on platforms where > we really can't - or pick one hardcoded choice. On sparc, you really > _have_ to specify one or the other. OK. BTW, is there any way to detect the kernel/user space overlap on memory layout statically? If there, I can do it. (I don't like "if (CONFIG_X86)" thing....) Or, maybe we need CONFIG_ARCH_OVERLAP_ADDRESS_SPACE? Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um