Re: [PATCH v2] arm64/signal: Silence sparse warning storing GCSPR_EL0

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 01:00:35AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> index 14ac6fdb872b9672e4b16a097f1b577aae8dec50..08d51fabdb9d47c848f14c9b25d6be04f109c2ee 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_GCS
>  #define GCS_SIGNAL_CAP(addr) (((unsigned long)addr) & GCS_CAP_ADDR_MASK)
>  
> -static bool gcs_signal_cap_valid(u64 addr, u64 val)
> +static bool gcs_signal_cap_valid(unsigned long __user *addr, u64 val)
>  {
>  	return val == GCS_SIGNAL_CAP(addr);
>  }

Another personal preference - addresses should be (unsigned long),
pointer to be accessed (... __user *). But we could even scrap this
function, there's a single caller to a one-line function.

> @@ -1094,15 +1094,15 @@ static int gcs_restore_signal(void)
>  	/*
>  	 * Check that the cap is the actual GCS before replacing it.
>  	 */
> -	if (!gcs_signal_cap_valid((u64)gcspr_el0, cap))
> +	if (!gcs_signal_cap_valid(gcspr_el0, cap))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	/* Invalidate the token to prevent reuse */
> -	put_user_gcs(0, (__user void*)gcspr_el0, &ret);
> +	put_user_gcs(0, gcspr_el0, &ret);
>  	if (ret != 0)
>  		return -EFAULT;
>  
> -	write_sysreg_s(gcspr_el0 + 1, SYS_GCSPR_EL0);
> +	write_sysreg_s((__force u64)(gcspr_el0 + 1), SYS_GCSPR_EL0);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

Looking through the code, do we have a similar problem in
gcs_signal_entry()? Or do we rely on sparse ignoring (unsigned long)
casts?

Whichever way we go, I think we should have consistency between these
two functions.

-- 
Catalin