From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Anastasios Papagiannis <tasos.papagiannnis@gmail.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
brauner@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com,
memxor@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, matt@bobrowski.net,
song@kernel.org, utilityemal77@gmail.com,
sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com, "Lorenzo Stoakes (Arm)" <ljs@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/7] mm: Add copy_remote_mm_str()
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 12:59:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e4edfd3-0c82-42e0-ad09-19ff8b8d1511@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260904145340.40212-2-tasos.papagiannnis@gmail.com>
> diff --git a/mm/nommu.c b/mm/nommu.c
> index ed3934bc2de4..94e3709e95fd 100644
> --- a/mm/nommu.c
> +++ b/mm/nommu.c
> @@ -1716,13 +1716,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(access_process_vm);
> * Copy a string from another process's address space as given in mm.
> * If there is any error return -EFAULT.
> */
> -static int __copy_remote_vm_str(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> +static int __copy_remote_mm_str(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> void *buf, int len)
> {
> unsigned long addr_end;
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> int ret = -EFAULT;
>
> + if (unlikely(len == 0))
> + return 0;
We have this check in copy_remote_vm_str(). Why are we performing the check now
twice?
It should either go only into __copy_remote_mm_str(), or if there a reason to
have it before get_task_mm(), it should go into copy_remote_mm_str(). Same
applies to the memory.c case.
> +
> *(char *)buf = '\0';
>
> if (mmap_read_lock_killable(mm))
> @@ -1752,6 +1755,27 @@ static int __copy_remote_vm_str(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * copy_remote_mm_str - copy a string from a remote address space.
> + * @mm: the remote address space
> + * @addr: start address to read from
> + * @buf: destination buffer
> + * @len: number of bytes to copy
> + * @gup_flags: flags modifying lookup behaviour (unused)
> + *
> + * The caller must hold a reference on @mm.
> + *
> + * Return: number of bytes copied from @addr (source) to @buf (destination),
> + * not including the trailing NUL. If @len is zero, return 0 without accessing
> + * @buf. Otherwise, @buf is always NUL-terminated. On any error, return
> + * -EFAULT.
> + */
> +int copy_remote_mm_str(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> + void *buf, int len, unsigned int gup_flags)
> +{
> + return __copy_remote_mm_str(mm, addr, buf, len);
> +}
What's more annoying is that both implementations of copy_remote_vm_str() are
identical, and both implementations of copy_remote_mm_str() are nearly identical
(just dropping the gup_flags for nommu). I'd like to avoid duplicating code for
nommu.
If we could export __copy_remote_vm_str(mm, addr, buf, len, gup_flags) for both
cases, we could instead provide a single implementation for copy_remote_vm_str()
and copy_remote_mm_str() e.g., in mm.h? (I'd prefer somewhere else, but we don't
seem to have a good git for memory.c + nommu.c shared stuff)
Now, that's also not completely nice, as I don't want us to EXPORT
__copy_remote_vm_str() ... given that these functions are "#ifdef
CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL" could we EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES?
Just a thought. CCing Lorenzo.
--
Cheers,
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-07 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-04 14:53 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/7] bpf: Add user memory access kfuncs for mm_struct Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-04 14:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/7] mm: Add copy_remote_mm_str() Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-07 10:59 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-09-07 13:41 ` Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-07 14:01 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-09-07 14:04 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-09-04 14:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/7] exec: Clear bprm->mm before dropping its reference Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-04 14:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/7] bpf: Add user memory access kfuncs for mm_struct Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-04 14:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/7] bpf: Allow reads through trusted-or-null BTF pointers Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-04 14:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/7] selftests/bpf: Cover trusted-or-null BTF pointer reads Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-04 14:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/7] bpf: Mark linux_binprm->mm as trusted-or-null Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-04 14:53 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 7/7] selftests/bpf: Test mm_struct user memory kfuncs with linux_binprm Anastasios Papagiannis
2026-09-04 18:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/7] bpf: Add user memory access kfuncs for mm_struct Andrew Morton
2026-09-07 6:58 ` Anastasios Papagiannis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0e4edfd3-0c82-42e0-ad09-19ff8b8d1511@kernel.org \
--to=david@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=matt@bobrowski.net \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=tasos.papagiannnis@gmail.com \
--cc=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®