> +int unsafe_follow_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> + unsigned long *pfn)
The one tab indent here looks weird, normally tis would be two tabs
or aligned aftetthe opening brace.
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_STRICT_FOLLOW_PFN
> + pr_info("unsafe follow_pfn usage rejected, see CONFIG_STRICT_FOLLOW_PFN\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> +#else
> + WARN_ONCE(1, "unsafe follow_pfn usage\n");
> + add_taint(TAINT_USER, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> +
> + return follow_pfn(vma, address, pfn);
> +#endif
Woudn't this be a pretty good use case of "if (IS_ENABLED(...)))"?
Also I'd expect the inverse polarity of the config option, that is
a USAFE_FOLLOW_PFN option to enable to unsafe behavior.
> +/**
> + * unsafe_follow_pfn - look up PFN at a user virtual address
> + * @vma: memory mapping
> + * @address: user virtual address
> + * @pfn: location to store found PFN
> + *
> + * Only IO mappings and raw PFN mappings are allowed.
> + *
> + * Returns zero and the pfn at @pfn on success, -ve otherwise.
> + */
> +int unsafe_follow_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> + unsigned long *pfn)
> +{
> + return follow_pfn(vma, address, pfn);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(unsafe_follow_pfn);
Any reason this doesn't use the warn and disable logic?
