Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 1/2] rseq: validate rseq_cs fields are < TASK_SIZE

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- On Jun 28, 2018, at 7:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:23 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is okay with me for a fix outside the merge window.  Can you do a
>>> followup for the next merge window that fixes it better, though?  In
>>> particular, TASK_SIZE is generally garbage.  I think a better fix
>>> would be something like adding a new arch-overridable helper like:
>>>
>>> static inline unsigned long current_max_user_addr(void) { return TASK_SIZE; }
>>
>> We already have that. It's called "user_addr_max()".
> 
> Nah, that one is more or less equivalent to TASK_SIZE_MAX, except that
> it's different if set_fs() is used.

So which one would be right in this case ? AFAIU we want to ensure we don't
populate regs->ip with a bogus address that would make SYSRET or other return
to userspace instructions explode.

Is that guaranteed by TASK_SIZE or TASK_SIZE_MAX (aliased by user_addr_max()) ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com