From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753214AbbEMGUJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 13 May 2015 02:20:09 -0400
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:34775 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753432AbbEMGUA (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 May 2015 02:20:00 -0400
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 08:19:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Drop some asm from copy_user_64.S
Message-ID: <20150513061954.GA24538@gmail.com>
References: <20150512205750.GJ3497@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150512205750.GJ3497@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> this is just an RFC first to sanity-check what I'm trying to do:
> 
> I want to get rid of the asm glue in arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.S which
> prepares the copy_user* alternatives calls. And replace it with nice and
> clean C.
> 
> The other intention is to switch to using copy_user_generic() which does
> CALL <copy_user_function> directly instead of as it is now with CALL
> _copy_*_user and inside the JMP to the proper <copy_user_function>,
> i.e., to save us that JMP.
> 
> I'm not 100% sure about the equivalence between the addition carry and
> segment limit check we're doing in asm in arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.S
> now and with the access_ok() I've replaced it with.
> 
> I mean, it *looks* like access_ok() and __chk_range_not_ok() especially
> does the proper checks - addition carry and segment limit with
> user_addr_max() but I'd like for someone much more experienced than me
> to double-check that.
> 
> So, without much further ado, here is the diff. It looks simple enough...

Looks nice. Would be useful to do before/after analysis of the 
generated asm with a defconfig and document that in the changelog.

I'd keep any changes to inlining decisions a separate patch and do 
vmlinux before/after size analysis as well, so that we don't mix the 
effects of the various enhancements.

Thanks,

	Ingo