lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 18/26] arm64: vdso32: Replace TASK_SIZE_32 check in vgettimeofday
From
Date
Hi Catalin,

On 3/17/20 3:50 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:04:01PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 3/17/20 2:38 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:22:12PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Can TASK_SIZE > UINTPTR_MAX on an arm64 system?
>
> TASK_SIZE yes on arm64 but not TASK_SIZE_32. I was asking about the
> arm32 check where TASK_SIZE < UINTPTR_MAX. How does the vdsotest return
> -EFAULT on arm32? Which code path causes this in the user vdso code?
>

Sorry I got confused because you referred to arch/arm/vdso/vgettimeofday.c which
is the arm64 implementation, not the compat one :)

In the case of arm32 everything is handled via syscall fallback.

> My guess is that on arm32 it only fails with -EFAULT in the syscall
> fallback path since a copy_to_user() would fail the access_ok() check.
> Does it always take the fallback path if ts > TASK_SIZE?
>

Correct, it goes via fallback. The return codes for these syscalls are specified
by the ABI [1]. Then I agree with you the way on which arm32 achieves it should
be via access_ok() check.

> On arm64, while we have a similar access_ok() check, USER_DS is (1 <<
> VA_BITS) even for compat tasks (52-bit maximum), so it doesn't detect
> the end of the user address space for 32-bit tasks.
>

I agree on this as well, if you remember we discussed it in past.

> Is this an issue for other syscalls expecting EFAULT at UINTPTR_MAX and
> instead getting a signal? The vdsotest seems to be the only one assuming
> this. I don't have a simple solution here since USER_DS currently needs
> to be a constant (used in entry.S).
>
> I could as well argue that this is not a valid ABI test, no real-world
> program relying on this behaviour ;).
>

Ok, but I could argue that unless you manage to prove to me that there is no
software out there relying on this behavior, I guess that the safest way to go
is to have a check here ;)

More than that, being a simple check, it has no performance impact.

[...]

>>>
>>> This last check needs an explanation. If the clock_id is invalid but res
>>> is not NULL, we allow it. I don't see where the compatibility issue is,
>>> arm32 doesn't have such check.
>>
>> The case that you are describing has to return -EPERM per ABI spec. This case
>> has to return -EINVAL.
>>
>> The first case is taken care from the generic code. But if we don't do this
>> check before on arm64 compat we end up returning the wrong error code.
>
> I guess I have the same question as above. Where does the arm32 code
> return -EINVAL for that case? Did it work correctly before you removed
> the TASK_SIZE_32 check?
>

I repeated the test and seems that it was failing even before I removed
TASK_SIZE_32. For reasons I can't explain I did not catch it before.

The getres syscall should return -EINVAL in the cases specified in [1].


> Sorry, just trying to figure out where the compatibility aspect is and
> that we don't add some artificial checks only to satisfy a vdsotest case
> that may or may not have relevance to any other user program.
>

No issue Catalin. I understand the implications of the change that I am
proposing with this series and I am the first one who wants to get it right.

Said that vdsotest follows "pedantically" the ABI spec and I chose it at the
beginning of this journey to have as less surprises as I could in the long run.

[1] http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/clock_getres.2.html

--
Regards,
Vincenzo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-17 17:41    [W:0.091 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site