Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:41:26 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <>
To: Linus Torvalds <>
Cc: Dan Williams <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,, Andi Kleen <>,
	Kees Cook <>,, X86 ML <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>, Al Viro <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Alan Cox <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/19] x86: introduce __uaccess_begin_nospec and

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:01:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Dan Williams <> wrote:
> >
> > By the time we get to de-reference uptr we know it is not pointing at
> > kernel memory, because access_ok would have failed and the cpu would
> > have waited for that failure result before doing anything else.
> I'm not actually convinced that's right in the original patches,
> exactly because of the issue that Josh pointed out: even if there is a
> comparison inside access_ok() that will be properly serialized, then
> that comparison can (and sometimes does) just cause a truth value to
> be generated, and then there  might be *another* comparison of that
> return value after the lfence. And while the return value is table,
> the conditional branch on that comparison isn't.
> The new model of just doing it together with the STAC should be fine, though.

Aha, that clears it up for me, thanks.  I was still thinking about the
previous version of the patch which had the barrier in access_ok().  I
didn't realize the new version moved the barrier to after the
access_ok() checks.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.