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 S1752675AbdASWU0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:20:26 -0500
Received: from imslp-west.kjsl.com ([65.50.211.133]:44330 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751719AbdASWUZ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:20:25 -0500
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 23:20:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, David Smith <dsmith@redhat.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context
Message-ID: <20170119222008.GI6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <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>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701191910080.5358@nanos>
 <20170119202218.GB20931@redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701192139490.5358@nanos>
 <20170119212718.GC20931@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170119212718.GC20931@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 04:27:18PM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi, Thomas -
> 
> > Well, if you are not in thread context then the check is pointless:
> > 	__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max())
> > and:
> > #define user_addr_max() (current->thread.addr_limit.seg)
> > 
> > So what guarantees when you are not in context of current, i.e. in thread
> > context, that the addr/size which is checked against the limits of current
> > actually belongs to current?
> 
> We're probably in task context in that there is a valid current(), but
> running with preemption and/or interrupts and/or pagefaults disabled
> at that point, so in_task() objects.  Think of it like from a kprobes
> handler callback, except maybe more temporary preemption blocking.

#define in_task()               (!(preempt_count() & \ 
                                   (NMI_MASK | HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET))) 

So it doesn't care about preempt_disable(), and it doesn't care about
local_irq_disable(), it also doesn't care about local_bh_disable().

What it does care about are nmi_enter(), irq_enter() and __do_softirq().