From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/signal: Silence spurious sparse warning storing GCSPR_EL0
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:35:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z1ht7X2LRw34pMJK@J2N7QTR9R3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20c12aac-193e-43ae-9418-39db1af4ede9@sirena.org.uk>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 03:44:29PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 02:48:48PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:42:53AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > We are seeing a false postive sparse warning in gcs_restore_signal()
> > >
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c:1054:9: sparse: sparse: cast removes address space '__user' of expression
>
> > This isn't a false positive; this is a cross-address space cast that
> > sparse is accurately warning about. That might be *benign*, but the tool
> > is doing exactly what it is supposed to.
>
> The spuriousness is arguable, from my point of view it's spurious in
> that we don't have the type of the system register we're writing to.
All that I'm asking for here is a trivial rewording; make the title say
something like:
arm64/signal: Avoid sparse warning when manipulating GCSPR_EL0
... and in the commit message, say something like:
Sparse complains about the manipulation of the GCSPR_EL0 value in
gcs_restore_signal(), because we cast to/from the __user address space
without a __force cast. Silence this warning by ${DOING_THING}.
... which clearly explains what's actually going wrong, rather than
making spurious complaints about the tool that may mislead a reader of
the commit message.
> > > + write_sysreg_s((unsigned long)(gcspr_el0 + 1), SYS_GCSPR_EL0);
>
> > Only one line here wants a __user pointer, so wouldn't it be simpler to
> > pass 'gcspr_el0' as an integer type, and cast it at the point it's used
> > as an actual pointer, rather than the other way around?
>
> > Then you could also simplify gcs_restore_signal(), etc.
>
> I find it both safer and clearer to keep values which are userspace
> pointers as userspace pointers rather than working with them as
> integers, using integers just sets off alarm bells.
Having casts strewn throughout the code sets off more alarm bells for
me.
> > Similarly in map_shadow_stack(), it'd be simpler to treat cap_ptr as an
> > integer type.
>
> With map_shadow_stack() it's a bit of an issue with letting users
> specify a size but yeah, we could do better there.
I don't follow. The only place where size interacts with cap_ptr is when
we initialize cap_ptr, and there we're adding size to an integer type:
cap_ptr = (unsigned long __user *)(addr + size -
(cap_offset * sizeof(unsigned long)));
I was suggesting something along the lines of the diff below.
Mark.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/gcs.c b/arch/arm64/mm/gcs.c
index 5c46ec527b1cd..096add5f2ddb2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/gcs.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/gcs.c
@@ -71,10 +71,7 @@ unsigned long gcs_alloc_thread_stack(struct task_struct *tsk,
SYSCALL_DEFINE3(map_shadow_stack, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, size, unsigned int, flags)
{
unsigned long alloc_size;
- unsigned long __user *cap_ptr;
- unsigned long cap_val;
int ret = 0;
- int cap_offset;
if (!system_supports_gcs())
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
@@ -106,17 +103,16 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(map_shadow_stack, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, size, unsi
* can be switched to.
*/
if (flags & SHADOW_STACK_SET_TOKEN) {
+ unsigned long cap_addr = addr + size - sizeof(unsigned long);
+ unsigned long cap_val;
+
/* Leave an extra empty frame as a top of stack marker? */
if (flags & SHADOW_STACK_SET_MARKER)
- cap_offset = 2;
- else
- cap_offset = 1;
+ cap_addr -= sizeof(unsigned long)
- cap_ptr = (unsigned long __user *)(addr + size -
- (cap_offset * sizeof(unsigned long)));
- cap_val = GCS_CAP(cap_ptr);
+ cap_val = GCS_CAP(cap_addr);
- put_user_gcs(cap_val, cap_ptr, &ret);
+ put_user_gcs(cap_val, (unsigned long __user *)cap_addr, &ret);
if (ret != 0) {
vm_munmap(addr, size);
return -EFAULT;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-10 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-10 0:42 [PATCH] arm64/signal: Silence spurious sparse warning storing GCSPR_EL0 Mark Brown
2024-12-10 14:17 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-12-10 14:45 ` Mark Brown
2024-12-10 14:48 ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-10 15:44 ` Mark Brown
2024-12-10 16:35 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2024-12-10 16:52 ` Mark Brown
2024-12-13 16:17 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-12-13 17:21 ` Mark Brown
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=Z1ht7X2LRw34pMJK@J2N7QTR9R3 \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).