Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] uaccess: Tell user_access_begin() if it's for a write or not | From | christophe leroy <> | Date | Thu, 23 Jan 2020 20:47:06 +0100 |
| |
Le 23/01/2020 à 19:02, Linus Torvalds a écrit : > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:59 AM Christophe Leroy > <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote: >> >> On 32 bits powerPC (book3s/32), only write accesses to user are >> protected and there is no point spending time on unlocking for reads. > > Honestly, I'm starting to think that 32-bit ppc just needs to look > more like everybody else, than make these changes.
Well, beside ppc32, I was also seen it as an opportunity for the modern ppc64. On it, you can unlock either read or write or both. And this is what is done for get_user() / put_user() and friends: unlock only reads for get_user() and only writes for put_user().
Could also be a compromise between performance and security: keeping reads allowed at all time and only protect against writes on modern architectures which support it like ppc64.
> > We used to have a read/write argument to the old "verify_area()" and > "access_ok()" model, and it was a mistake. It was due to odd i386 user > access issues. We got rid of it. I'm not convinced this is any better > - it looks very similar and for odd ppc access issues.
I'm going to leave it aside, at least for the time being, and do it as a second step later after evaluating the real performance impact. I'll respin tomorrow in that way.
> > But if we really do want to do this, then:
Indeed I took the idea from a discussion in last Octobre (Subject: "book3s/32 KUAP (was Re: [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user())" )
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87h84avffi.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au/
> >> Add an argument to user_access_begin() to tell when it's for write and >> return an opaque key that will be used by user_access_end() to know >> what was done by user_access_begin(). > > You should make it more opaque than "unsigned long". > > Also, it shouldn't be a "is this a write". What if it's a read _and_ a > write? Only a write? Only a read?
Indeed that was more: does it includes a write. It's either RO or RW
Christophe
| |