[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220216131332.1489939-7-arnd@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:13:20 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Cc: linux@...linux.org.uk, will@...nel.org, guoren@...nel.org,
bcain@...eaurora.org, geert@...ux-m68k.org, monstr@...str.eu,
tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, nickhu@...estech.com,
green.hu@...il.com, dinguyen@...nel.org, shorne@...il.com,
deller@....de, mpe@...erman.id.au, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
dalias@...c.org, davem@...emloft.net, richard@....at,
x86@...nel.org, jcmvbkbc@...il.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ardb@...nel.org,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 06/18] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
The way that access_ok() is defined on x86 is slightly different from
most other architectures, and a bit more complex.
The generic version tends to result in the best output on all
architectures, as it results in single comparison against a constant
limit for calls with a known size.
There are a few callers of __range_not_ok(), all of which use TASK_SIZE
as the limit rather than TASK_SIZE_MAX, but I could not see any reason
for picking this. Changing these to call __access_ok() instead uses the
default limit, but keeps the behavior otherwise.
x86 is the only architecture with a WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() checking
access_ok(), but it's probably best to leave that in place.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 25 +++----------------------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 79c4869ccdd6..a59ba2578e64 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -16,33 +16,14 @@
* Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address.
* Returns 0 if the range is valid, nonzero otherwise.
*/
-static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
+static inline bool __access_ok(void __user *ptr, unsigned long size)
{
unsigned long limit = TASK_SIZE_MAX;
+ unsigned long addr = ptr;
- /*
- * If we have used "sizeof()" for the size,
- * we know it won't overflow the limit (but
- * it might overflow the 'addr', so it's
- * important to subtract the size from the
- * limit, not add it to the address).
- */
- if (__builtin_constant_p(size))
- return unlikely(addr > limit - size);
-
- /* Arbitrary sizes? Be careful about overflow */
- addr += size;
- if (unlikely(addr < size))
- return true;
- return unlikely(addr > limit);
+ return (size <= limit) && (addr <= (limit - size));
}
-#define __access_ok(addr, size) \
-({ \
- __chk_user_ptr(addr); \
- !__chk_range_not_ok((unsigned long __force)(addr), size); \
-})
-
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
static inline bool pagefault_disabled(void);
# define WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() \
--
2.29.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists