From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] lguest host feedback tidyups
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:44:22 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1179107062.23513.152.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070513183934.GY4095@ftp.linux.org.uk>
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 19:39 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:19:14AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ u32 lgread_u32(struct lguest *lg, u32 ad
> >
> > /* Don't let them access lguest binary */
> > if (!lguest_address_ok(lg, addr, sizeof(val))
> > - || get_user(val, (u32 __user *)addr) != 0)
> > + || get_user(val, (__force u32 __user *)addr) != 0)
> > kill_guest(lg, "bad read address %u", addr);
> > return val;
>
> *Ahem*
>
> What kind of address are we really getting there? IOW, where does it
> ultimately come from?
Hi Al,
This patch has been superseded. But to clarify, the address generally
comes from a guest register. My confusion came from sparse warnings on
the above code like the following:
warning: cast removes address space of expression
I inserted __force, but it's actually caused by the "addr" being a
"u32": if it's an "unsigned long" sparse doesn't warn. This is a win
anyway: although the code is i386-specific at the moment, that will
change. I prefer to use u32 rather than unsigned long to declare
registers (eg. if I ever wanted to support 32 bit guests on a 64 bit
host), but that's not even a consideration at this stage.
> > lock_cpu_hotplug();
> > if (cpu_has_pge) { /* We have a broader idea of "global". */
> > cpu_had_pge = 1;
> > - on_each_cpu(adjust_pge, 0, 0, 1);
> > + on_each_cpu(adjust_pge, (void *)0, 0, 1);
>
> That's called NULL...
Yes, but this is clearer. Here's adjust_pge:
static void adjust_pge(void *on)
{
if (on)
write_cr4(read_cr4() | X86_CR4_PGE);
else
write_cr4(read_cr4() & ~X86_CR4_PGE);
}
And here's the two calls to it:
on_each_cpu(adjust_pge, (void *)0, 0, 1);
...
on_each_cpu(adjust_pge, (void *)1, 0, 1);
> > case LHCALL_LOAD_TLS:
> > - guest_load_tls(lg, (struct desc_struct __user*)regs->edx);
> > + guest_load_tls(lg,
> > + (__force struct desc_struct __user*)regs->edx);
>
> Umm... That's borderline OK, but...
Yeah, gone in replacement patch.
> > static void push_guest_stack(struct lguest *lg, u32 __user **gstack, u32 val)
> > {
> > - lgwrite_u32(lg, (u32)--(*gstack), val);
> > + lgwrite_u32(lg, (__force u32)--(*gstack), val);
> > }
>
> Now, _that_ is just plain dumb. Why not declare that lgwrite_u32() as taking
> u32 __user * as argument and kill the casts?
Last I tried, this turns out to create even more casts.
> > - lg->regs->esp = (u32)gstack + lg->page_offset;
> > + lg->regs->esp = (__force u32)gstack + lg->page_offset;
>
> Yuck. Cast to unsigned long (or uintptr_t), please. In this case it is
> legitimate.
Indeed, replacement patch uses unsigned long.
Thanks,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-14 1:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-11 1:17 [PATCH 0/5] lguest feedback tidyups Rusty Russell
2007-05-11 1:19 ` [PATCH 1/5] lguest host " Rusty Russell
2007-05-11 1:21 ` [PATCH 2/5] lguest guest " Rusty Russell
2007-05-11 1:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] lguest network driver " Rusty Russell
2007-05-11 1:23 ` [PATCH 4/5] lguest block " Rusty Russell
2007-05-11 1:24 ` [PATCH 5/5] lguest console " Rusty Russell
2007-05-13 4:08 ` [PATCH 4/5] lguest block " Rusty Russell
2007-05-13 3:52 ` [PATCH 3/5] lguest network " Rusty Russell
2007-05-13 4:12 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-11 6:56 ` [PATCH 2/5] lguest guest " Christoph Hellwig
2007-05-11 7:31 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-11 7:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-05-13 1:00 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-13 3:48 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-13 18:43 ` Al Viro
2007-05-14 7:11 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-13 4:07 ` [PATCH 1/5] lguest host " Rusty Russell
2007-05-13 18:47 ` Al Viro
2007-05-14 1:30 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-13 18:39 ` Al Viro
2007-05-14 1:44 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2007-05-14 5:38 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-11 6:53 ` [PATCH 0/5] lguest " Christoph Hellwig
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=1179107062.23513.152.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.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