[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i+JXg0YfGJeBN2wDpNqVr1g6AKQ1WbSCjdpXmSWjWcAPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:01:35 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] x86: use __uaccess_begin_nospec and ASM_IFENCE in
get_user paths
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can we kill off the remaining users of set_fs() ?
>
> I would love to, but it's not going to happen short-term. If ever.
>
> Some could be removed today: the code in arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> seems to be literally the ramblings of a diseased mind. There's no
> reason for the set_fs(), there's no reason for the
> flush_icache_range() (it's a no-op on x86 anyway), and the smp_wmb()
> looks bogus too.
>
> I have no idea how that braindamage happened, but I assume it got
> copied from some broken source.
At the time commit 0a14842f5a3c0e88a1e59fac5c3025db39721f74 went in,
this was the first JIT implementation for BPF, so maybe I wanted to avoid
other arches to forget to flush icache : You bet that my implementation served
as a reference for other JIT.
At that time, various calls to flush_icache_range() were definitely in arch/x86
or kernel/module.c
(I believe I must have copied the code from kernel/module.c, but that
I am not sure)
>
> But there are about ~100 set_fs() calls in generic code, and some of
> those really are pretty fundamental. Doing things like "kernel_read()"
> without set_fs() is basically impossible.
>
> We've had set_fs() since the beginning. The naming is obviously very
> historical. We have it for a very good reason, and I don't really see
> that reason going away.
>
> So realistically, we want to _minimize_ set_fs(), and we might want to
> make sure that it's done only in limited settings (it might, for
> example, be a good idea and a realistic goal to make sure that drivers
> and modules can't do it, and use proper helper functions like that
> "read_kernel()").
>
> But getting rid of the concept entirely? Doesn't seem likely.
>
> Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
