[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190906001431.GU1131@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 01:14:31 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
Chanho Min <chanho.min@....com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 01/12] lib: introduce copy_struct_{to,from}_user
helpers
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 12:49:44AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 09:00:03AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > > + }
> > > > + /* Copy the interoperable parts of the struct. */
> > > > + if (__copy_to_user(dst, src, size))
> > > > + return -EFAULT;
> > >
> > > Why not simply clear_user() and copy_to_user()?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean -- are you asking why we need to
> > do memchr_inv(src + size, 0, rest) earlier?
>
> I'm asking why bother with __ and separate access_ok().
>
> > > if ((unsigned long)addr & 1) {
> > > u8 v;
> > > if (get_user(v, (__u8 __user *)addr))
> > > return -EFAULT;
> > > if (v)
> > > return -E2BIG;
> > > addr++;
> > > }
> > > if ((unsigned long)addr & 2) {
> > > u16 v;
> > > if (get_user(v, (__u16 __user *)addr))
> > > return -EFAULT;
> > > if (v)
> > > return -E2BIG;
> > > addr +=2;
> > > }
> > > if ((unsigned long)addr & 4) {
> > > u32 v;
> > > if (get_user(v, (__u32 __user *)addr))
> > > return -EFAULT;
> > > if (v)
> > > return -E2BIG;
> > > }
> > > <read the rest like you currently do>
>
> Actually, this is a dumb way to do it - page size on anything
> is going to be a multiple of 8, so you could just as well
> read 8 bytes from an address aligned down. Then mask the
> bytes you don't want to check out and see if there's anything
> left.
>
> You can have readability boundaries inside a page - it's either
> the entire page (let alone a single word) being readable, or
> it's EFAULT for all parts.
>
> > > would be saner, and things like x86 could trivially add an
> > > asm variant - it's not hard. Incidentally, memchr_inv() is
> > > an overkill in this case...
> >
> > Why is memchr_inv() overkill?
>
> Look at its implementation; you only care if there are
> non-zeroes, you don't give a damn where in the buffer
> the first one would be. All you need is the same logics
> as in "from userland" case
> if (!count)
> return true;
> offset = (unsigned long)from & 7
> p = (u64 *)(from - offset);
> v = *p++;
> if (offset) { // unaligned
> count += offset;
> v &= ~aligned_byte_mask(offset); // see strnlen_user.c
> }
> while (count > 8) {
> if (v)
> return false;
> v = *p++;
> count -= 8;
> }
> if (count != 8)
> v &= aligned_byte_mask(count);
> return v == 0;
>
> All there is to it...
... and __user case would be pretty much this with
if (user_access_begin(from, count)) {
....
user_access_end();
}
wrapped around the damn thing - again, see strnlen_user.c, with
unsafe_get_user(v, p++, efault);
instead of those
v = *p++;
Calling conventions might need some thinking - it might be
* all read, all zeroes
* non-zero found
* read failed
so we probably want to map the "all zeroes" case to 0,
"read failed" to -EFAULT and "non-zero found" to something
else. Might be positive, might be some other -E.... - not
sure if E2BIG (or EFBIG) makes much sense here. Need to
look at the users...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists