Message-ID: <47499095-142d-49ed-fb94-c24d9c29ef4e@wdc.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:45:41 -0700
From:   Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc:     "luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com" <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "albert@...ive.com" <albert@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] riscv: fix __user annotation for __copy_user()

On 6/7/18 9:30 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 12:28:47 PDT (-0700), atish.patra@....com wrote:
>> On 6/4/18 12:09 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 11:46:50AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/18 8:22 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>>>>> __copy_user() is a function, written in assembly, used to copy
>>>>> memory between kernel & user space. As such its to & from args
>>>>> may both take a user pointer or a kernel pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> However the prototype for this function declare these two args
>>>>> as 'void __user *', which is no more & no less correct than
>>>>> declaring them as 'void *'. In fact theer is no possible correct
>>>>
>>>> /s/theer/there
>>>>
>>>>> annotation for such a function.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is worked around here by declaring these args as
>>>>> unsigned long and casting them to the right type in each of
>>>>> two callers raw_copy_{to,from}_user() as some kind of cast would
>>>>> be needed anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: another solution, maybe cleaner but slightly more complex,
>>>>>          would be to declare two version of __copy_user,
>>>>>          either in the asm file or via an alias, each having already
>>>>>          the correct typing for raw_copy_{to,from}_user().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I feel that would be a better solution as it is implemented similarly
>>>> in ARM as well.
>>>>
>>>> I am unable to understand how "unsigned long" is better than "void*".
>>>> x86 implementation has both arguments as void*. Can you please clarify ?
>>>
>>> "better" is quite relative and it must be understood that sparse
>>> allow to cast pointers o fany kinds to and from unsigned long
>>> without any warnings (while doing a cast between different address
>>> space will emit a warning unless you use '__force').
>>>
>>
>> Got it.
>>> As I tried to explain here above, the fact that this function is
>>> declared as taking 2 __user pointers requires to use of casts
>>> (ugly casts with __force) to get over the __user. By declaring
>>> them as taking unsigned long, you still have to use casts but, IMO,
>>> it's cleaner
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed explanation.
>>
>>> Note: they're generic pointers/addresses anyway, they can't be
>>>         dereferenced anyway so unsigned is as good as a plain void*
>>>         or a void __user*
>>> Note: using unsigned long here, fundamentally to bypass the __user,
>>>         is the same as casting a const pointer back to a plain pointer
>>>         via an intermediate cast to unsigned long. People can argue
>>>         that's kinda cheating, and they would be right of course, but
>>>         using __force or declaring twice the function with two different
>>>         names and prototype is also a form of cheating.
>>> Note: if this would be my code, I would choose the solution with
>>>         two declarations.
>>
>> I prefer that as well.
> 
> I haven't compiled this, but I think it should work.  It's on the fix-sparse
> branch of kernel.org/palmer/linux.git .
> 
> commit 88ffc46f92c16db0fa37edb79038d37ced0a8b41
> gpg: Signature made Thu 07 Jun 2018 09:29:02 AM PDT
> gpg:                using RSA key 00CE76D1834960DFCE886DF8EF4CA1502CCBAB41
> gpg:                issuer "palmer@...belt.com"
> gpg: Good signature from "Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>" [ultimate]
> gpg:                 aka "Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>" [ultimate]
> Author: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
> Date:   Thu Jun 7 09:20:57 2018 -0700
> 
>      RISC-V: Split the definition of __copy_user
>      
>      We use a single __copy_user assembly function to copy memory both from
>      and to userspace.  While this works, it triggers sparse errors because
>      we're implicitly casting between the kernel and user address spaces by
>      calling __copy_user.
>      
>      This patch splits the C declaration into a pair of functions,
>      __asm_copy_{to,from}_user, that have sane semantics WRT __user.  This
>      split tricks sparse into treating these function calls as safe.  The
>      assembly implementation then just aliases these two symbols to
>      __copy_user, which I renamed to __asm_copy_tofrom_user.  The result is
>      an spare-safe implementation that pays to performance or code size
>      penalty.
>      
>      Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h
> index 14b0b22fb578..0dbbbab05dac 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -392,19 +392,21 @@ do {								\
>   })
>   
>   
> -extern unsigned long __must_check __copy_user(void __user *to,
> +extern unsigned long __must_check __asm_copy_from_user_user(void *to,
>   	const void __user *from, unsigned long n);

Minor typos:

/s/__asm_copy_from_user_user/__asm_copy_from_user/

> +extern unsigned long __must_check __asm_copy_to_user_user(void __user *to,
> +	const void *from, unsigned long n);

/s/__asm_copy_to_user_user/__asm_copy_to_user/

>   
>   static inline unsigned long
>   raw_copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)
>   {
> -	return __copy_user(to, from, n);
> +	return __asm_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
>   }
>   
>   static inline unsigned long
>   raw_copy_to_user(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n)
>   {
> -	return __copy_user(to, from, n);
> +	return __asm_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
>   }
>   
>   extern long strncpy_from_user(char *dest, const char __user *src, long count);
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S b/arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S
> index 58fb2877c865..bd51e47ebd44 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S
> +++ b/arch/riscv/lib/uaccess.S
> @@ -13,7 +13,15 @@ _epc:
>   	.previous
>   	.endm
>   
> -ENTRY(__copy_user)
> +/* __asm_copy_to_user and __asm_copy_from_user are actually the same function,
> + * they're just provided as two different symbols to C code so sparse doesn't
> + * yell about casting between two different address spaces. */
> +.global __asm_copy_to_user
> +.set __asm_copy_to_user,__asm_copy_tofrom_user
> +.global __asm_copy_from_user
> +.set __asm_copy_from_user,__asm_copy_tofrom_user
> +
> +ENTRY(__asm_copy_tofrom_user)
>   
>   	/* Enable access to user memory */
>   	li t6, SR_SUM
> 
-ENDPROC(__copy_user)
+ENDPROC(__asm_copy_tofrom_user)

I have done boot testing with above typo fixes.

Regards,
Atish

Powered by blists - more mailing lists