linux-kernel - [tip:x86/asm] x86: Replace assembly access

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <tip-c5fe5d80680e2949ffe102180f5fc6cefc0d145f@git.kernel.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 Dec 2013 17:00:40 -0800
From:	tip-bot for Linus Torvalds <tipbot@...or.com>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: [tip:x86/asm] x86: Replace assembly access_ok() with a C variant

Commit-ID:  c5fe5d80680e2949ffe102180f5fc6cefc0d145f
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/c5fe5d80680e2949ffe102180f5fc6cefc0d145f
Author:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
AuthorDate: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:30:58 -0800
Committer:  H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
CommitDate: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:58:17 -0800

x86: Replace assembly access_ok() with a C variant

It turns out that the assembly variant doesn't actually produce that
good code, presumably partly because it creates a long dependency
chain with no scheduling, and partly because we cannot get a flags
result out of gcc (which could be fixed with asm goto, but it turns
out not to be worth it.)

The C code allows gcc to schedule and generate multiple (easily
predictable) branches, and as a side benefit we can really optimize
the case where the size is constant.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA%2B55aFzPBdbfKovMT8Edr4SmE2_=%2BOKJFac9XW2awegogTkVTA@mail.gmail.com
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 8ec57c0..84ecf1d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -40,22 +40,28 @@
 /*
  * Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address.
  * Returns 0 if the range is valid, nonzero otherwise.
- *
- * This is equivalent to the following test:
- * (u33)addr + (u33)size > (u33)current->addr_limit.seg (u65 for x86_64)
- *
- * This needs 33-bit (65-bit for x86_64) arithmetic. We have a carry...
  */
+static inline int __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, unsigned long limit)
+{
+	/*
+	 * If we have used "sizeof()" for the size,
+	 * we know it won't overflow the limit (but
+	 * it might overflow the 'addr', so it's
+	 * important to subtract the size from the
+	 * limit, not add it to the address).
+	 */
+	if (__builtin_constant_p(size))
+		return addr > limit - size;
+
+	/* Arbitrary sizes? Be careful about overflow */
+	addr += size;
+	return (addr < size) || (addr > limit);
+}
 
 #define __range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)				\
 ({									\
-	unsigned long flag, roksum;					\
 	__chk_user_ptr(addr);						\
-	asm("add %3,%1 ; sbb %0,%0 ; cmp %1,%4 ; sbb $0,%0"		\
-	    : "=&r" (flag), "=r" (roksum)				\
-	    : "1" (addr), "g" ((long)(size)),				\
-	      "rm" (limit));						\
-	flag;								\
+	__chk_range_not_ok((unsigned long __force)(addr), size, limit); \
 })
 
 /**
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/