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 S1751659AbdASVOa (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:14:30 -0500
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:58527 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751012AbdASVO3 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:14:29 -0500
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 21:50:36 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
cc: David Smith <dsmith@redhat.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context
In-Reply-To: <20170119202218.GB20931@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701192139490.5358@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> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701191910080.5358@nanos>
 <20170119202218.GB20931@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 Thu, 19 Jan 2017, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

> Hi, Thomas -
> 
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 07:12:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > [...]
> > 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.
> > [...]
> > We are not papering over problems.
> 
> Understood.  We were interpreting the comments around access_ok to
> mean that the underlying hazard condition was different (stricter)
> than in_task().  If the warning could be made to match that hazard
> condition more precisely, then safe but non-in_task() callers can use
> access_ok() without the warning.

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?

I assume this is about systemtap modules. Can you please explain what you
are trying to achieve? I guess you know that you actually access current,
but then we need a seperate special function and not relaxing of the
checks.

Thanks,

	tglx