----- On Jun 28, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:23 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is okay with me for a fix outside the merge window. Can you do a
>>> followup for the next merge window that fixes it better, though? In
>>> particular, TASK_SIZE is generally garbage. I think a better fix
>>> would be something like adding a new arch-overridable helper like:
>>>
>>> static inline unsigned long current_max_user_addr(void) { return TASK_SIZE; }
>>
>> We already have that. It's called "user_addr_max()".
>
> Nah, that one is more or less equivalent to TASK_SIZE_MAX, except that
> it's different if set_fs() is used.
So which one would be right in this case ? AFAIU we want to ensure we don't
populate regs->ip with a bogus address that would make SYSRET or other return
to userspace instructions explode.
Is that guaranteed by TASK_SIZE or TASK_SIZE_MAX (aliased by user_addr_max()) ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
