From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] arm64: Fix __addr_ok and __range_ok macros
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:20:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140313112019.GD30339@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394059289-3972-1-git-send-email-cov@codeaurora.org>
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:28PM +0000, Christopher Covington wrote:
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -66,12 +66,12 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
> #define segment_eq(a,b) ((a) == (b))
>
> /*
> - * Return 1 if addr < current->addr_limit, 0 otherwise.
> + * Return 1 if addr <= current->addr_limit, 0 otherwise.
> */
> #define __addr_ok(addr) \
> ({ \
> unsigned long flag; \
> - asm("cmp %1, %0; cset %0, lo" \
> + asm("cmp %1, %0; cset %0, ls" \
> : "=&r" (flag) \
> : "r" (addr), "0" (current_thread_info()->addr_limit) \
> : "cc"); \
As Will said, this doesn't look right. Why do you need TASK_SIZE_64 to
be valid?
> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
> * Returns 1 if the range is valid, 0 otherwise.
> *
> * This is equivalent to the following test:
> - * (u65)addr + (u65)size < (u65)current->addr_limit
> + * (u65)addr + (u65)size <= current->addr_limit
> *
> * This needs 65-bit arithmetic.
> */
> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
> ({ \
> unsigned long flag, roksum; \
> __chk_user_ptr(addr); \
> - asm("adds %1, %1, %3; ccmp %1, %4, #2, cc; cset %0, cc" \
> + asm("adds %1, %1, %3; ccmp %1, %4, #3, cc; cset %0, ls" \
> : "=&r" (flag), "=&r" (roksum) \
> : "1" (addr), "Ir" (size), \
> "r" (current_thread_info()->addr_limit) \
Just trying to understand: if adds does not set the C flag, we go on and
do the ccmp. If addr + size <= addr_limit, "cset ls" sets the flag
variable. If addr + size actually sets the C flag, we need to make sure
that "cset ls" doesn't trigger, which would mean to set C flag and clear
Z flag. So why do you change the ccmp flags from #2 to #3? It looks to
me like #2 is enough.
--
Catalin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Christopher Covington <cov@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: Fix __addr_ok and __range_ok macros
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:20:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140313112019.GD30339@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394059289-3972-1-git-send-email-cov@codeaurora.org>
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:41:28PM +0000, Christopher Covington wrote:
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -66,12 +66,12 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
> #define segment_eq(a,b) ((a) == (b))
>
> /*
> - * Return 1 if addr < current->addr_limit, 0 otherwise.
> + * Return 1 if addr <= current->addr_limit, 0 otherwise.
> */
> #define __addr_ok(addr) \
> ({ \
> unsigned long flag; \
> - asm("cmp %1, %0; cset %0, lo" \
> + asm("cmp %1, %0; cset %0, ls" \
> : "=&r" (flag) \
> : "r" (addr), "0" (current_thread_info()->addr_limit) \
> : "cc"); \
As Will said, this doesn't look right. Why do you need TASK_SIZE_64 to
be valid?
> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
> * Returns 1 if the range is valid, 0 otherwise.
> *
> * This is equivalent to the following test:
> - * (u65)addr + (u65)size < (u65)current->addr_limit
> + * (u65)addr + (u65)size <= current->addr_limit
> *
> * This needs 65-bit arithmetic.
> */
> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
> ({ \
> unsigned long flag, roksum; \
> __chk_user_ptr(addr); \
> - asm("adds %1, %1, %3; ccmp %1, %4, #2, cc; cset %0, cc" \
> + asm("adds %1, %1, %3; ccmp %1, %4, #3, cc; cset %0, ls" \
> : "=&r" (flag), "=&r" (roksum) \
> : "1" (addr), "Ir" (size), \
> "r" (current_thread_info()->addr_limit) \
Just trying to understand: if adds does not set the C flag, we go on and
do the ccmp. If addr + size <= addr_limit, "cset ls" sets the flag
variable. If addr + size actually sets the C flag, we need to make sure
that "cset ls" doesn't trigger, which would mean to set C flag and clear
Z flag. So why do you change the ccmp flags from #2 to #3? It looks to
me like #2 is enough.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-13 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-05 22:41 [RFC PATCH] arm64: Fix __addr_ok and __range_ok macros Christopher Covington
2014-03-05 22:41 ` Christopher Covington
2014-03-06 8:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-03-06 8:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2014-03-06 16:08 ` Will Deacon
2014-03-06 16:08 ` Will Deacon
2014-03-07 13:22 ` Christopher Covington
2014-03-07 13:22 ` Christopher Covington
2014-03-13 11:20 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2014-03-13 11:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-03-13 13:41 ` Christopher Covington
2014-03-13 13:41 ` Christopher Covington
2014-03-13 15:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-03-13 15:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-03-19 16:29 ` [PATCH v2] arm64: Fix __range_ok macro Christopher Covington
2014-03-19 16:29 ` Christopher Covington
2014-03-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-03-20 17:42 ` Catalin Marinas
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=20140313112019.GD30339@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.