Re: [Patch 01/11] Introducing generic hardware breakpoint handlerinterfaces

[Alan Stern]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, K.Prasad wrote:

> > Isn't that exactly the check you need to implement?
> > 
> > 	addr >= TASK_SIZE && (addr + len) >= TASK_SIZE,
> > 
> > or perhaps better,
> > 
> > 	addr >= TASK_SIZE && (addr + len) >= addr.
> > 
> > In this case you _do_ know the length of the breakpoint.
> > 
> > Alan Stern
> >
> 
> Aren't we just checking if len is a positive number through the above
> checks? The validation checks in the patchset should take care of
> negative lengths. Or am I missing something?

Well, 0x60000000 is a positive number, and 0xd0000000 is >= TASK_SIZE.  
But their sum is 0x30000000, which lies in userspace.  In other words, 
you are missing the possibility that the addition might overflow and 
wrap around.

> I thought you wanted the code to check for an upper sane limit for addr
> in kernel-space, say something like this:
> 
> TASK_SIZE <= addr <= (Upper limit for Kernel Virtual Address)

No, the test should be

    TASK_SIZE <= addr <= addr + (len-1) <= (Upper limit for Kernel VA)

By the way, is TASK_SIZE the correct lower bound for kernel virtual
addresses on x86-64?

> When I referred to 'len' in my previous mail, it meant the length
> of the kernel virtual memory area (which can be used to find the upper
> bound).

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.  Isn't that limit always 0xffffffff on 
x86-32?

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/