On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 02:52:25PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:26:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > > index 32fc8061aa76..566da441eba2 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > > @@ -416,6 +416,17 @@ extern unsigned long __must_check __arch_copy_in_user(void __user *to, const voi
> > > #define INLINE_COPY_TO_USER
> > > #define INLINE_COPY_FROM_USER
> > >
> > > +static inline bool arch_has_exact_copy_from_user(unsigned long n)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * copy_from_user() aligns the source pointer if the size is greater
> > > + * than 15. Since all the loads are naturally aligned, they can only
> > > + * fail on the first byte.
> > > + */
> > > + return n > 15;
> > > +}
> > > +#define arch_has_exact_copy_from_user
> >
> > Did you mean:
> >
> > #define arch_has_exact_copy_from_user arch_has_exact_copy_from_user
>
> Yes (and I shouldn't write patches late in the day).
>
> > Mind you, if this expands to 1 I'd have expected copy_mount_options()
> > not to compile, so I may be missing something.
>
> I think arch_has_exact_copy_from_user() (with the braces) is looked up
> in the function namespace, so the macro isn't expanded. So arguably the
> patch is correct but pretty dodgy ;).
>
> I scrapped this in my second attempt in reply to Kevin.
Problem solved!
> > > diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> > > index a28e4db075ed..8febc50dfc5d 100644
> > > --- a/fs/namespace.c
> > > +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> > > @@ -3025,13 +3025,16 @@ void *copy_mount_options(const void __user * data)
> >
> > [ Is this applying a band-aid to duct tape?
> >
> > The fs presumably knows ahead of time whether it's expecting a string or
> > a fixed-size blob for data, so I'd hope we could just DTRT rather than
> > playing SEGV roulette here.
> >
> > This might require more refactoring than makes sense for this series
> > though. ]
>
> That's possible but it means moving the copy from sys_mount() to the
> specific places where it has additional information (the filesystems).
> I'm not even sure it's guaranteed to be strings. If it is, we could just
> replace all this with a strncpy_from_user().
Fair enough. I'll add it to my wishlist...
Cheers
---Dave
