On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 07:20:50 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Some architectures like powerpc64 have the capability to separate > read access and write access protection. > For get_user() and copy_from_user(), powerpc64 only open read access. > For put_user() and copy_to_user(), powerpc64 only open write access. > But when using unsafe_get_user() or unsafe_put_user(), > user_access_begin open both read and write. > > Other architectures like powerpc book3s 32 bits only allow write > access protection. And on this architecture protection is an heavy > operation as it requires locking/unlocking per segment of 256Mbytes. > On those architecture it is therefore desirable to do the unlocking > only for write access. (Note that book3s/32 ranges from very old > powermac from the 90's with powerpc 601 processor, till modern > ADSL boxes with PowerQuicc II processors for instance so it > is still worth considering.) > > In order to avoid any risk based of hacking some variable parameters > passed to user_access_begin/end that would allow hacking and > leaving user access open or opening too much, it is preferable to > use dedicated static functions that can't be overridden. > > Add a user_read_access_begin and user_read_access_end to only open > read access. > > Add a user_write_access_begin and user_write_access_end to only open > write access. > > By default, when undefined, those new access helpers default on the > existing user_access_begin and user_access_end. > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Applied to powerpc topic/uaccess, thanks. https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/999a22890cb183b918e4372395d24426a755cef2 cheers _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
