Re: [PATCH 0/4 RESEND] exec: unify compat/non-compat code

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Oleg Nesterov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 12/01, Milton Miller wrote:

quoted

quoted

+#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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>