public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] x86: convert arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() to user_access_begin/user_access_end()
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 02:08:46 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200324020846.GG23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgMmmnQTFT7U9+q2BsyV6Ge+LAnnhPmv0SUtFBV1D4tVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:06:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:53 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> >
> > Lift stac/clac pairs from __futex_atomic_op{1,2} into arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser(),
> > fold them with access_ok() in there.
> 
> So this is a deep internal macro and already has the double
> underscore, but I'm inclined to say "add the unsafe here too" for
> those __futex_atomic_opX() macros that are now called inside that
> user_access_begin/end region.
> 
> And wouldn't it be lovely to get rid of the error return thing, and
> pass in a label instead, the way "usafe_get/put_user()" works too?
> That might be a separate patch from the "reorg" thing, though.

Umm...
#define __futex_atomic_op1(insn, ret, oldval, uaddr, oparg)     \
        asm volatile("1:\t" insn "\n"                           \
                     "2:\n"                                     \
                     "\t.section .fixup,\"ax\"\n"               \
                     "3:\tmov\t%3, %1\n"                        \
                     "\tjmp\t2b\n"                              \
                     "\t.previous\n"                            \
                     _ASM_EXTABLE_UA(1b, 3b)                    \
                     : "=r" (oldval), "=r" (ret), "+m" (*uaddr) \
                     : "i" (-EFAULT), "0" (oparg), "1" (0))

OK, ret wouldn't be in the list of outputs that way and
*uaddr could become an input (we only care about the address,
same as for put_user), but oldval is a genuine output -
insn is xchgl or lock xaddl, and we obviously care about the
old value fetched by it.  The same goes for
#define __futex_atomic_op2(insn, ret, oldval, uaddr, oparg)     \
        asm volatile("1:\tmovl  %2, %0\n"                       \
                     "\tmovl\t%0, %3\n"                         \
                     "\t" insn "\n"                             \
                     "2:\t" LOCK_PREFIX "cmpxchgl %3, %2\n"     \
                     "\tjnz\t1b\n"                              \
                     "3:\n"                                     \
                     "\t.section .fixup,\"ax\"\n"               \
                     "4:\tmov\t%5, %1\n"                        \
                     "\tjmp\t3b\n"                              \
                     "\t.previous\n"                            \
                     _ASM_EXTABLE_UA(1b, 4b)                    \
                     _ASM_EXTABLE_UA(2b, 4b)                    \
                     : "=&a" (oldval), "=&r" (ret),             \
                       "+m" (*uaddr), "=&r" (tem)               \
                     : "r" (oparg), "i" (-EFAULT), "1" (0))
- oldval is calculated by that thing and arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser()
ends up storing it in *oval.  And moving that assignment into
the inline asm will simply put *oval into the output list,
won't it?

How would you work around that?

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-24  2:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-23 18:50 [RFC][PATCHSET] futex uaccess cleanups Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] futex: arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() calling conventions change Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51   ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] sh: no need of access_ok() in arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51   ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7] [parisc, s390, sparc64] no need for access_ok() in futex handling Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51   ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7] objtool: whitelist __sanitizer_cov_trace_switch() Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51   ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] x86: convert arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() to user_access_begin/user_access_end() Al Viro
2020-03-23 19:06     ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-24  2:08       ` Al Viro [this message]
2020-03-24 16:19         ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-24 20:42           ` Al Viro
2020-03-24 20:57             ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-27  2:42               ` Al Viro
2020-03-27  3:42                 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-27  3:49                   ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-27  4:03                     ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-27  4:35                       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-03-23 18:51   ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7] generic arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() doesn't need access_ok() Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51   ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] x86: get rid of user_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() Al Viro

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=20200324020846.GG23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@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