Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling

From	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling
Date	2016-02-16 22:40 +0100
Message-ID	<r2VvI-530-37@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <r2Lwn-6Lz-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <r2MVs-7Lj-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <r2Qmn-1Is-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <r2Rip-2mN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <r2T0S-3ha-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/16/2016 10:50 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>> [replying to self and adding some x86 people]
>>
>> Background: Euntaik reports a problem where userspace has ended up with
>> a memory page mapped adjacent to an MMIO page (e.g. from /dev/mem or a
>> PCI memory bar from someplace in /sys). strncpy_from_user happens with
>> the word-at-a-time implementation, and we end up reading into the MMIO
>> page.

how does this work if the adjacent page is not accessible?
or has some other magic fault handler, or is on an NFS filesystem where
the server is rebooting?

isn't the general rule for such basic functions "don't touch memory unless you KNOW it is there"



> Of course, no actual real program will do that for mixing MMIO and
> non-MMIO, and so we might obviously add code to always add a guard
> page for the normal case when a specific address isn't asked for. So
> as a heuristic to make sure it doesn't happen by mistake it possibly
> makes sense.

but what happens to the read if the page isn't present?
or is execute-only or .. or ..

Thread

[PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling EunTaik Lee <eun.taik.lee@samsung.com> - 2016-02-16 05:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-02-16 11:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2016-02-16 12:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-02-16 13:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-02-16 17:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-02-16 18:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-16 20:00 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> - 2016-02-16 22:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-02-17 00:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-17 01:30 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-02-19 19:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-19 23:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-02-16 18:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add alignment fault hanling Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-02-16 18:20 +0100

csiph-web