[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1050939005.3002.1531230515472.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:48:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 4.18 2/6] rseq: use get_user/put_user rather than
__get_user/__put_user
----- On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Michael Ellerman mpe@...erman.id.au wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> writes:
>> ----- On Jul 8, 2018, at 5:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:
>>
>>> In preparation to use __u64 for the rseq_cs pointer field, 32-bit
>>> architectures need to read this 64-bit value located in user-space
>>> addresses.
>>>
>>> __get_user is used to read this value, given that its access check has
>>> already been performed with access_ok() on rseq registration.
>>>
>>> arm does not implement 8-byte __get_user. Rather than trying to
>>> improve __get_user on ARM, use get_user/put_user across rseq instead.
>>>
>>> If those end up showing up in benchmarks, the proper approach would be to
>>> use user_access_begin() / unsafe_get/put_user() / user_access_end()
>>> anyway.
>>
>> So, another twist to this story: ppc32 does not implement u64 get_user().
>
> Or __get_user() for that matter.
>
> But we should just fix it.
>
> We have the asm to do it, it's just the fact that __gu_val is unsigned
> long causes the size > sizeof(x) check here to fail:
>
> #define __get_user_size(x, ptr, size, retval) \
> do { \
> retval = 0; \
> __chk_user_ptr(ptr); \
> if (size > sizeof(x)) \
> (x) = __get_user_bad(); \
>
>
>
> We seem to be able to fix that with the __inttype() trick that x86 uses.
>
> That's probably not 4.18 material though. But if you want to go with
> copy_from_user() for now you could then switch to get_user() for 4.19.
I agree. Let's use copy_from_user() for 4.18. Once get_user() ends up supporting
u64 on ppc32 for 4.19, rseq will happily move back to it.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists