On 2022/11/22 2:16, Will Deacon wrote:

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 11:15:49AM +0800, Liu Shixin wrote:

quoted

On 2022/11/18 22:34, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 03:56:02PM +0800, Liu Shixin wrote:

quoted

 static inline bool pud_user_accessible_page(pud_t pud)
 {
-	return pud_leaf(pud) && pud_user(pud);
+	return pud_valid(pud) && pud_leaf(pud) && pud_user(pud);

Not caused by this patch, but why don't we have something like a
pud_user_exec() check here like we do for the pte and pmd levels?

As far as I know, there is no user use the user executable pud on arm64, so didn't define pud_user_exec().

I can believe they don't get exposed to userspace at all, but exposing only
as non-executable doesn't sound right. So I would have thought that either
pud_user_accessible_page() would always return false or it would need to
check for the executable case too.

Thanks for your advice, I will add the check for the executable case too.

Will
.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel