From: Amit Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Vincenzo Frascino <Vincenzo.Frascino@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/traps: Avoid unnecessary kernel/user pointer conversion
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:26:55 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6662988b-b891-b6b0-cd7a-bd7f661fc737@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210914160056.GA35239@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Hi,
On 9/14/21 9:30 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 08:57:42PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
>> Annotating a pointer from kernel to __user and then back again might
>> confuse sparse. In call_undef_hook() it can be avoided by not using the
>> intermediate user pointer variable.
>
> When you say "might confuse sparse", does it complain today? If so, can
> you include an example of what goes wrong?
No it does not give warning. The __force option silences the warning. My
idea is to remove the unwanted __force annotations and not mix user and
kernel pointers.
>
>> Note: This patch adds no functional changes to code.
>>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> index b03e383d944a..357d10a8bbf5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> @@ -404,7 +404,8 @@ static int call_undef_hook(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>
>> if (!user_mode(regs)) {
>> __le32 instr_le;
>> - if (get_kernel_nofault(instr_le, (__force __le32 *)pc))
>> + if (get_kernel_nofault(instr_le,
>> + (__le32 *)instruction_pointer(regs)))
>
> Can we make `pc` an unsigned long, instead?
I think it can be done.
>
> It'd be nice to handle all three cases consistently, even if that means
> adding __force to the two user cases.
Agree with your suggestion. Even in the 2 user cases, __force may not be
needed as the typecast will be from from unsigned long to user pointer.
BR,
Amit
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
>> goto exit;
>> instr = le32_to_cpu(instr_le);
>> } else if (compat_thumb_mode(regs)) {
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-15 13:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-14 15:27 [PATCH] arm64/traps: Avoid unnecessary kernel/user pointer conversion Amit Daniel Kachhap
2021-09-14 16:00 ` Mark Rutland
2021-09-15 13:56 ` Amit Kachhap [this message]
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=6662988b-b891-b6b0-cd7a-bd7f661fc737@arm.com \
--to=amit.kachhap@arm.com \
--cc=Vincenzo.Frascino@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox