linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio tree

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]

Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:39:07 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio tree

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:32:04AM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 02:12:53PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Hence, __get_user() on x86-32 with a 64-bit quantity results in
> > __get_user_bad() being called, which is an undefined function.
> > Only if you build with x86-64 support enabled (iow, CONFIG_X86_32 not
> > defined) then you get the 64-bit __get_user() support.
> > 
> > Given this, I fail to see how x86-32 can possibly work.
> 
> You're right; mea culpa.  It compiles without warning on x86-32, but it 
> does not link.  I still think this is broken archtecture stupidity since 
> put_user() works for 64 bit data types.

Indeed, and you'll find that several other architectures besides ARM and
x86-32 have exactly the same problem - as I listed in my message from a
few days ago.

Okay, so now I get to set you a challenge, since you're the one wanting
64-bit __get_user(): try implementing it on x86-32 :)

Also in my previous message from a few days ago I provided a set of
functions which test out the implementation.  Here they are... again.

All these should not produce any warnings, and should produce correct
code - especially the narrowing/widening tests:

int test_8(unsigned char *v, unsigned char *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_8_constp(unsigned char *v, const unsigned char *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_8_volatilep(unsigned char *v, volatile unsigned char *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_16(unsigned short *v, unsigned short *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_16_constp(unsigned short *v, const unsigned short *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_32(unsigned int *v, unsigned int *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_32_constp(unsigned int *v, const unsigned int *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_64(unsigned long long *v, unsigned long long *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_64_constp(unsigned long long *v, const unsigned long long *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_ptr(unsigned int **v, unsigned int **p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_const(unsigned int *v, const unsigned int *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_64_narrow(unsigned long *v, unsigned long long *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }
int test_32_wide(unsigned long long *v, unsigned long *p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }

However, this one should warn:

int test_wrong(char **v, const char **p)
{ return __get_user(*v, p); }

Good luck (I think you'll need lots of it to get a working solution)! :)

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.