lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 08/14] net, arm64: untag user pointers in tcp_zerocopy_receive
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:14 PM Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:03 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03/15/2019 12:51 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > This patch is a part of a series that extends arm64 kernel ABI to allow to
> > > pass tagged user pointers (with the top byte set to something else other
> > > than 0x00) as syscall arguments.
> > >
> > > tcp_zerocopy_receive() uses provided user pointers for vma lookups, which
> > > can only by done with untagged pointers.
> > >
> > > Untag user pointers in this function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>
> > > ---
> > > net/ipv4/tcp.c | 2 ++
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > index 6baa6dc1b13b..89db3b4fc753 100644
> > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > > @@ -1758,6 +1758,8 @@ static int tcp_zerocopy_receive(struct sock *sk,
> > > int inq;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > + address = untagged_addr(address);
> > > +
> > > if (address & (PAGE_SIZE - 1) || address != zc->address)
> >
> > The second test will fail, if the top bits are changed in address but not in zc->address
>
> Will fix in v12, thanks Eric!

Looking at the code, what's the point of this address != zc->address
check? Should I just remove it?

>
> >
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > >
> >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-18 14:18    [W:0.045 / U:0.556 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site