On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:16:39PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:53:10AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> >> >> +int __hwspin_trylock(struct hwspinlock *hwlock, int mode, unsigned long *flags)
>> >> >> +{
>> >> >> + int ret;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + if (unlikely(!hwlock)) {
>> >> >> + pr_err("invalid hwlock\n");
>> >> >
>> >> > These kind of errors can get very spammy for buggy drivers.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, but that's the purpose - I want to catch such egregious drivers
>> >> who try to crash the kernel.
>> >
>> > That can be better - because you get a backtrace, and it causes people
>> > to report the problem rather than just ignore it. It may also prevent
>> > the driver author releasing his code (as it won't work on their
>> > initial testing.)
>> >
>> ...
>> >
>> > If it's "extremely buggy behaviour" then the drivers deserve to crash.
>> > Such stuff should cause them not to get out the door. A simple printk
>> > with an error return can just be ignored.
>>
>> I like this approach too, but recently we had a few privilege
>> escalation exploits which involved NULL dereference kernel bugs
>> (process context mapped address 0 despite a positive mmap_min_addr).
>
> That's not a concern on ARM.
Good point, thanks. The problem is that we can't rely on that in a
generic interface.
I remember a recent discussion where you suggested to have a
conditional check that will be compiled out on architectures where we
can rely on NULL dereference to produce an oops; something like that
can be handy here.
But then there's the other (quite reasonable) claim that says we
shouldn't crash the machine because of a non fatal bug: if a crappy
driver messes up, the user (not the developer) will most probably
prefer the machine to keep running with degraded functionality rather
than boot.
... which gets us back to pr_err.
> at virtual address 0 does not rely on mmap_min_addr - in fact, we can't
> use this as it's tuneable to enforce this requirement.
>
> It's highly illegal on ARM - as ARM CPUs without vector remap place the
> hardware vectors at virtual address 0, and as such allowing the user to
> map a page there will take the system down. So we have this code in the
> mmap path:
>
> #define arch_mmap_check(addr, len, flags) \
> (((flags) & MAP_FIXED && (addr) < FIRST_USER_ADDRESS) ? -EINVAL : 0)
>
> which prevents any attempt what so ever, irrespective of the mmap_min_addr
> setting, to create a userspace induced mapping at address 0.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
