Le 15/02/2022 à 10:12, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:17 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 17:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> From: Arnd Bergmann
>>>
>>
>> With set_fs() out of the picture, wouldn't it be sufficient to check
>> that bit #55 is clear? (the
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 09:30:41AM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Ard Biesheuvel
> > Sent: 15 February 2022 08:18
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 17:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > >
> > > arm64 has an inline asm implementation of access_ok() that is derived from
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:34:46PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> arm64 has an inline asm implementation of access_ok() that is derived from
> the 32-bit arm version and optimized for the case that both the limit and
> the size are variable. With set_fs() gone, the limit
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:39:46AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:21 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 10:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > arm64 also has this leading up to the range check, and I think we'd no
> > longer need it:
> >
> > if
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:21:16AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 10:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:17 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 17:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > > >
> > >
> > > With
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:21 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 10:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> arm64 also has this leading up to the range check, and I think we'd no
> longer need it:
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_TAGGED_ADDR_ABI) &&
> (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD
From: Ard Biesheuvel
> Sent: 15 February 2022 08:18
>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 17:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > arm64 has an inline asm implementation of access_ok() that is derived from
> > the 32-bit arm version and optimized for the case that both the limit and
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 10:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:17 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 17:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > >
> >
> > With set_fs() out of the picture, wouldn't it be sufficient to check
> > that bit #55 is
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:17 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 17:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
>
> With set_fs() out of the picture, wouldn't it be sufficient to check
> that bit #55 is clear? (the bit that selects between TTBR0 and TTBR1)
> That would
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 17:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> arm64 has an inline asm implementation of access_ok() that is derived from
> the 32-bit arm version and optimized for the case that both the limit and
> the size are variable. With set_fs() gone, the limit is always
On 2022-02-14 16:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann
arm64 has an inline asm implementation of access_ok() that is derived from
the 32-bit arm version and optimized for the case that both the limit and
the size are variable. With set_fs() gone, the limit is always constant,
and the
From: Arnd Bergmann
arm64 has an inline asm implementation of access_ok() that is derived from
the 32-bit arm version and optimized for the case that both the limit and
the size are variable. With set_fs() gone, the limit is always constant,
and the size usually is as well, so just using the
12 matches
Mail list logo
