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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists