On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:24:01AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 06/04/2019 08:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 12:11:25PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> >> index 4bb65f3..41fa905 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> >> @@ -397,37 +397,29 @@ static void do_bad_area(unsigned long addr, unsigned
> >> int esr, struct pt_regs *re
> >> static vm_fault_t __do_page_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long
> >> addr,
> >> unsigned int mm_flags, unsigned long vm_flags)
> >> {
> >> - struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> >> - vm_fault_t fault;
> >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
> >>
> >> - vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
> >> - fault = VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
> >> if (unlikely(!vma))
> >> - goto out;
> >> - if (unlikely(vma->vm_start > addr))
> >> - goto check_stack;
> >> + return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Ok, we have a good vm_area for this memory access, so we can handle
> >> * it.
> >> */
> >> -good_area:
> >> + if (unlikely(vma->vm_start > addr)) {
> >> + if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN))
> >> + return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
> >> + if (expand_stack(vma, addr))
> >> + return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
> >> + }
> >
> > You could have a single return here:
> >
> > if (unlikely(vma->vm_start > addr) &&
> > (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN) || expand_stack(vma, addr)))
> > return VM_FAULT_BADMAP;
> >
> > Not sure it's any clearer though.
>
> TBH the proposed one seems clearer as it separates effect (vma->vm_start >
> addr)
> from required permission check (vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN) and required
> action
> (expand_stack(vma, addr)). But I am happy to change as you have mentioned if
> that
> is preferred.
Not bothered really. You can leave them as in your proposal (I was just
seeing the VM_GROWSDOWN check tightly coupled with the expand_stack(),
it's fine either way).
--
Catalin
