From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9B8C43465 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2823C2085B for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727412AbgIUP0r convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:26:47 -0400 Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-151.mimecast.com ([207.82.80.151]:20183 "EHLO eu-smtp-delivery-151.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726818AbgIUP0l (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:26:41 -0400 Received: from AcuMS.aculab.com (156.67.243.126 [156.67.243.126]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-128-o9XrdwUZOBmYoiJUKH50rg-1; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:26:37 +0100 X-MC-Unique: o9XrdwUZOBmYoiJUKH50rg-1 Received: from AcuMS.Aculab.com (fd9f:af1c:a25b:0:43c:695e:880f:8750) by AcuMS.aculab.com (fd9f:af1c:a25b:0:43c:695e:880f:8750) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:26:35 +0100 Received: from AcuMS.Aculab.com ([fe80::43c:695e:880f:8750]) by AcuMS.aculab.com ([fe80::43c:695e:880f:8750%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1347.000; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:26:35 +0100 From: David Laight To: 'Al Viro' CC: 'Christoph Hellwig' , Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , Arnd Bergmann , David Howells , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mips@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "sparclinux@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-aio@kvack.org" , "io-uring@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "keyrings@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH 04/11] iov_iter: explicitly check for CHECK_IOVEC_ONLY in rw_copy_check_uvector Thread-Topic: [PATCH 04/11] iov_iter: explicitly check for CHECK_IOVEC_ONLY in rw_copy_check_uvector Thread-Index: AQHWkCRT6PkpgoAV6EexsDeYdekosqlzL1uQ///yg4CAABQ90A== Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:26:35 +0000 Message-ID: <99515e866c3e4e9c8140795352a62704@AcuMS.aculab.com> References: <20200921143434.707844-1-hch@lst.de> <20200921143434.707844-5-hch@lst.de> <7336624280b8444fb4cb00407317741b@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20200921151119.GU3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20200921151119.GU3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.202.205.107] MIME-Version: 1.0 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=C51A453 smtp.mailfrom=david.laight@aculab.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: aculab.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Language: en-US Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: io-uring@vger.kernel.org From: Al Viro > Sent: 21 September 2020 16:11 > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 03:05:32PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > > I've actually no idea: > > 1) Why there is an access_ok() check here. > > It will be repeated by the user copy functions. > > Early sanity check. > > > 2) Why it isn't done when called from mm/process_vm_access.c. > > Ok, the addresses refer to a different process, but they > > must still be valid user addresses. > > > > Is 2 a legacy from when access_ok() actually checked that the > > addresses were mapped into the process's address space? > > It never did. 2 is for the situation when a 32bit process > accesses 64bit one; addresses that are perfectly legitimate > for 64bit userland (and fitting into the first 4Gb of address > space, so they can be represented by 32bit pointers just fine) > might be rejected by access_ok() if the caller is 32bit. Can't 32 bit processes on a 64bit system access all the way to 4GB? Mapping things by default above 3GB will probably break things. But there is no reason to disallow explicit maps. And in any case access_ok() can use the same limit as it does for 64bit processes - the page fault handler will sort it all out. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)