linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xtensa: fix {get,put}

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMo8BfL3j4odehiR8KzHwjohfoBADOhjSjeXFG7AwgBXoXQRTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Oct 2019 20:35:39 -0700
From:   Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" 
        <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xtensa: fix {get,put}_user() for 64bit values

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 7:29 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> Hmm...   Looking at __get_user_size(), we have retval = 0; very early
> in it.  So I wonder if it should simply be
> #define __get_user_size(x, ptr, size, retval)                           \
> do {                                                                    \
>         int __cb;                                                       \
>         retval = 0;                                                     \
>         switch (size) {                                                 \
>         case 1: __get_user_asm(x, ptr, retval, 1, "l8ui", __cb);  break;\
>         case 2: __get_user_asm(x, ptr, retval, 2, "l16ui", __cb); break;\
>         case 4: __get_user_asm(x, ptr, retval, 4, "l32i", __cb);  break;\
>         case 8: if (unlikely(__copy_from_user(&x, ptr, 8)) {            \
>                         retval = -EFAULT;                               \
>                         x = 0;                                          \
>                 }                                                       \
>                 break;                                                  \
>         default: (x) = __get_user_bad();                                \
>         }                                                               \
> } while (0)
> so that 64bit case is closer to the others in that respect (i.e. zeroing
> done on failure and out of line).  No?

Ok, I agree.
The intermediate __gu_val in __get_user_[no]check doesn't work well
with some data types used in the kernel, unfortunately. I'll post a series
with what's close to your initial patch on top of rearranged
__get_user_[no]check.

-- 
Thanks.
-- Max