From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user()
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:00:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjyiiYhAbzVDUW1F3j9CAcu8+ugSvGYwUivdBfKoeU6yA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191015180846.GA31707@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:08 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Another question: right now we have
> if (!access_ok(uaddr, sizeof(u32)))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> ret = arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser(op, oparg, &oldval, uaddr);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> in kernel/futex.c. Would there be any objections to moving access_ok()
> inside the instances and moving pagefault_disable()/pagefault_enable() outside?
I think we should remove all the "atomic" versions, and just make the
rule be that if you want atomic, you surround it with
pagefault_disable()/pagefault_enable().
That covers not just the futex ops (where "atomic" is actually
somewhat ambiguous - the ops themselves are atomic too, so the naming
might stay, although arguably the "futex" part makes that pointless
too), but also copy_to_user_inatomic() and the powerpc version of
__get_user_inatomic().
So we'd aim to get rid of all the "inatomic" ones entirely.
Same ultimately probably goes for the NMI versions. We should just
make it be a rule that we can use all of the user access functions
with pagefault_{dis,en}able() around them, and they'll be "safe" to
use in atomic context.
One issue with the NMI versions is that they actually want to avoid
the current value of set_fs(). So copy_from_user_nmi() (at least on
x86) is special in that it does
if (__range_not_ok(from, n, TASK_SIZE))
return n;
instead of access_ok() because of that issue.
NMI also has some other issues (nmi_uaccess_okay() on x86, at least),
but those *probably* could be handled at page fault time instead.
Anyway, NMI is so special that I'd suggest leaving it for later, but
the non-NMI atomic accesses I would suggest you clean up at the same
time.
I think the *only* reason we have the "inatomic()" versions is that
the regular ones do that "might_fault()" testing unconditionally, and
might_fault() _used_ to be just a might_sleep() - so it's not about
functionality per se, it's about "we have this sanity check that we
need to undo".
We've already made "might_fault()" look at pagefault_disabled(), so I
think a lot of the reasons for inatomic are entirely historical.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-15 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-06 22:20 [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user() Guenter Roeck
2019-10-06 23:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-06 23:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 0:04 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-10-07 1:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 1:24 ` Al Viro
2019-10-07 2:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 2:50 ` Al Viro
2019-10-07 3:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 15:40 ` David Laight
2019-10-07 18:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-08 9:58 ` David Laight
2019-10-07 17:34 ` Al Viro
2019-10-07 18:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 18:22 ` Al Viro
2019-10-07 18:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 18:36 ` Tony Luck
2019-10-07 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 19:49 ` Tony Luck
2019-10-07 20:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-08 3:29 ` Al Viro
2019-10-08 4:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-08 4:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-08 5:02 ` Al Viro
2019-10-08 4:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-10 19:55 ` Al Viro
2019-10-10 22:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-11 0:11 ` Al Viro
2019-10-11 0:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-13 18:13 ` Al Viro
2019-10-13 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-13 19:10 ` Al Viro
2019-10-13 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-13 19:59 ` Al Viro
2019-10-13 20:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-15 3:46 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-10-15 18:08 ` Al Viro
2019-10-15 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2019-10-15 19:40 ` Al Viro
2019-10-15 20:18 ` Al Viro
2019-10-16 12:12 ` [RFC] change of calling conventions for arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() Al Viro
2019-10-16 12:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-10-16 20:25 ` [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user() Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:36 ` [RFC][PATCHES] drivers/scsi/sg.c uaccess cleanups/fixes Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] sg_ioctl(): fix copyout handling Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] sg_new_write(): replace access_ok() + __copy_from_user() with copy_from_user() Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] sg_write(): __get_user() can fail Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] sg_read(): simplify reading ->pack_id of userland sg_io_hdr_t Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] sg_new_write(): don't bother with access_ok Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] sg_read(): get rid of access_ok()/__copy_..._user() Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] sg_write(): get rid of access_ok()/__copy_from_user()/__get_user() Al Viro
2019-10-17 19:39 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] SG_IO: get rid of access_ok() Al Viro
2019-10-17 21:44 ` [RFC][PATCHES] drivers/scsi/sg.c uaccess cleanups/fixes Douglas Gilbert
2019-11-05 4:54 ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-11-05 5:25 ` Al Viro
2019-11-06 4:29 ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-10-18 0:27 ` [RFC] csum_and_copy_from_user() semantics Al Viro
2019-10-25 14:01 ` [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user() Thomas Gleixner
2019-10-08 4:57 ` Al Viro
2019-10-08 13:14 ` Greg KH
2019-10-08 15:29 ` Al Viro
2019-10-08 15:38 ` Greg KH
2019-10-08 17:06 ` Al Viro
2019-10-08 19:58 ` Al Viro
2019-10-08 20:16 ` Al Viro
2019-10-08 20:34 ` Al Viro
2019-10-07 2:30 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-10-07 3:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 0:23 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-10-07 4:04 ` Max Filippov
2019-10-07 12:16 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-10-07 19:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 20:29 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-10-07 23:27 ` Guenter Roeck
2019-10-08 6:28 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAHk-=wjyiiYhAbzVDUW1F3j9CAcu8+ugSvGYwUivdBfKoeU6yA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).