From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields,
 validate user inputs
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:30:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1776351430.10902.1530585009519.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
References: <20180702223143.4663-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <CA+55aFzZYOatOtjrm7fD7878_SzCAmEoEu74n0+pgd7faH-sTQ@mail.gmail.com> <825871008.10839.1530573419561.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1959930320.10843.1530573742647.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <8B2E4CEB-3080-4602-8B62-774E400892EB@amacapital.net> <459661281.10865.1530580742205.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <858886246.10882.1530583291379.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <CA+55aFxWMjwx-4TGBHt0H6bh6FXC3NKMsjp=eKGw5cgA4wMBUA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxWMjwx-4TGBHt0H6bh6FXC3NKMsjp=eKGw5cgA4wMBUA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>, rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.ma>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:18 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:01 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>
>> One thing to consider is how we will implement the load of that pointer
>> on the kernel side.
> 
> Use "get_user()". It works for 64-bit objects too, and it will be
> atomic in the 32-bit sub-parts on a 32-bit architecture.

Is it really ? Last time we had this discussion, not all architectures
guaranteed that reading a 64-bit integer would happen in two atomic
32-bit sub-parts. This was the main motivation for the LINUX_FIELD_u32_u64()
macro as it stands today (rather than using a union).

> 
> Again: there is no point in trying to be atomic in the full 64 bits
> (when you're running on 32-bit). The upper bits don't have to "match"
> the lower bits. They just have to be zero. So doing it as two loads is
> fine - the same way it's perfectly fine to do it as two stores (since
> the store to the upper bits will always be zero).

I'd be fine with two atomic loads, but I'd rather have a strong
confirmation about this, because last time around there were
architectures where it was not true as far as I recall.

Thanks,

Mathieu


> 
>             Linus

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com