linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] csky: uaccess.h: Coding convention with asm generic

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:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 21:07:09 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] csky: uaccess.h: Coding convention with asm generic

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 8:50 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 11:25:29AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Actually, please don't use the asm-generic __put_user version based
> > on copy_to_user, we probably have killed it off long ago.
>
> Yes, they are horrible.
>
> > We might want to come up with a new version of asm-generic/uaccess.h
> > that actually makes it easier to have a sane per-architecture
> > implementation of the low-level accessors without set_fs().
> >
> > I've added Christoph to Cc here, he probably has some ideas
> > on where we should be heading.
>
> I think asm-generic/uaccess.h pretty much only makes sense for
> nommu.  For that case we can just kill the __{get,put}_user_fn
> indirection.  I actually have work for that in an old branch.
>
> Trying to use any of asm-generic/uaccess.h for MMU based kernel is
> just asking for trouble.
I still think the arch should base on asm-generic/uaccess.h, not abandon it.

Thx for reviewing.

>
> > One noteworthy aspect is that almost nothing users the low-level
> > __get_user()/__put_user() helpers any more outside of architecture
> > specific code, so we may not need to have separate versions
> > for much longer.
>
> Al has been trying to kill them off entirely for a while, and I hope
> he'll eventually succeed.  That being said the difference should be
> that the __ versions just skip the access_ok, so having both is
> fairly trivial to implement.



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/