Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:54:24 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4 RESEND] exec: unify compat/non-compat code |
| |
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 12/01, Milton Miller wrote: >> > >> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT >> > > +int compat_do_execve(char * filename, >> > > + compat_uptr_t __user *argv, >> > > + compat_uptr_t __user *envp, >> > > + struct pt_regs * regs) >> > > +{ >> > > + return do_execve_common(filename, >> > > + (void __user*)argv, (void __user*)envp, >> > >> > Shouldn't these be compat_ptr(argv)? (makes a difference on s390)
Indeed. The "compat_uptr_t __user *argv" is wrong, and it should be just
compat_uptr_t argv;
and then every time you turn it into a pointer, it should use "compat_ptr(argv)".
Then, since it's a pointer to an array of pointers, when you do that, you should turn it into a pointer to "compat_uptr_t", so you actually have this:
- user passes "compat_uptr_t"
- the kernel can turn that into "compat_uptr_t __user *" by doing
compat_uptr_t __user *pptr; pptr = compat_ptr(argv);
- the kernel needs to fetch the individual entries with
compat_uptr_t cuptr = get_user(pptr);
- the kernel can then turn _those_ into the actual pointers to the string with
const char __user *str = compat_ptr(cuptr);
so you need two levels of compat_ptr() conversion.
> So, once again, this should not (and can not) be compat_ptr(argv) afaics.
It can be, and probably should. But the low-level s390 wrapper function may have done one of the levels already. It probably shouldn't, and we _should_ do the "compat_ptr()" thing a the generic C level. That's what we do with all the other pointers, after all.
Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |