On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 04:03:31PM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Hmm. So it strikes me that this still does the "access_ok()", but
> that's pointless for the actual pointer masking case. One of the whole
> points of the pointer masking is that we can just do this without
> actually checking the address (or length) at all.
>
> That's why the strncpy_from_user() has the pattern of
>
> if (can_do_masked_user_access()) {
> ... don't worry about the size of the address space ..
>
> and I think this code should do that too.
>
> IOW, I think we can do even better than your patch with something
> (UNTESTED!) like the attached.
>
> That will also mean that any other architecture that starts doing the
> user address masking trick will pick up on this automatically.
>
> Hmm?
Yeah, it makes sense to hook into that existing
can_do_masked_user_access() thing. The patch looks good, and it boots
without blowing up. Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@kernel.org>
--
Josh
