From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754352AbdASSqL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:46:11 -0500
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:58159 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754334AbdASSqJ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:46:09 -0500
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:12:48 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: David Smith <dsmith@redhat.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context
In-Reply-To: <8758e5b4-050d-a5dd-2e58-e4f9dccc734b@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701191910080.5358@nanos>
References: <20161122095715.GN3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CALCETrW2mdAo59OW0+VfqTg8OAXe9qmiq23dex62a1ry0u2=Vw@mail.gmail.com> <20161122193720.GA3045@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CA+55aFzUq8uqsJyZRdNy4Rt11L561YcahwtTkHNU3Y2LeXGJEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161205102747.GT3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <f84a1055-f65b-fcd8-c914-46b328acd172@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701162211570.3923@nanos> <8758e5b4-050d-a5dd-2e58-e4f9dccc734b@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, David Smith wrote:
> On 01/16/2017 03:14 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> If you put that new access_ok() call in a module that gets
> >> loaded/unloaded, you see one warning for every module load, which gets a
> >> bit annoying.
> > 
> > Can you please elaborate where this access_ok() is placed in the module
> > code?
> 
> It doesn't really matter where you place the access_ok() call in the
> module code.

It does matter very much, because the fact that the warning triggers tells
me that it's placed in code which is NOT executed in task context.

> If you call access_ok() in a module, then that module has
> its own WARN_ON_ONCE() static variable. If access_ok() was a function
> exported from the kernel, then there would be only one copy of the
> WARN_ON_ONCE() static variable.

Not a big deal. If access_ok() is called from the wrong context in that
module then this should be fixed and not the warning supressed.

We are not papering over problems.

Thanks,

	tglx