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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 18:39:42 +0800 From: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com> To: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> CC: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Guohanjun <guohanjun@...wei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/2] riscv: uaccess: rename __get/put_user_nocheck to __get/put_mem_nocheck 在 2022/8/26 15:43, Andrew Jones 写道: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 02:33:47PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote: >> >> >> 在 2022/8/25 18:56, Andrew Jones 写道: >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 03:20:24AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote: >>>> Current, The helpers __get/put_user_nocheck() is used by get/put_user() and >>>> __get/put_kernel_nofault(), which is not always uaccess, so the name with >>>> *user* is not appropriate. >>>> >>>> Also rename xxx_user_xxx to xxx_mem_xx on the call path of >>>> __get/put_user_nocheck() >>>> >>>> Only refactor code without any functional changes. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++---------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h >>>> index 855450bed9f5..1370da055b44 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h >>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h >>>> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ >>>> * call. >>>> */ >>>> -#define __get_user_asm(insn, x, ptr, err) \ >>>> +#define __get_mem_asm(insn, x, ptr, err) \ >>>> do { \ >>>> __typeof__(x) __x; \ >>>> __asm__ __volatile__ ( \ >>>> @@ -64,12 +64,12 @@ do { \ >>>> } while (0) >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT >>>> -#define __get_user_8(x, ptr, err) \ >>>> - __get_user_asm("ld", x, ptr, err) >>>> +#define __get_mem_8(x, ptr, err) \ >>>> + __get_mem_asm("ld", x, ptr, err) >>>> #else /* !CONFIG_64BIT */ >>>> -#define __get_user_8(x, ptr, err) \ >>>> +#define __get_mem_8(x, ptr, err) \ >>>> do { \ >>>> - u32 __user *__ptr = (u32 __user *)(ptr); \ >>>> + u32 *__ptr = (u32 *)(ptr); \ >>> >>> Doesn't casting away __user reduce sparse's utility? >> >> From the call logic[1], the address passed into this macro is not >> necessarily __user. I understand that no problem will be introduced for >> sparse's utility. >> >> In addition, there is no need to do a pointer conversion here, will be fixed >> next version. >> >> [1] __get_kernel_nofault -> __get_mem_nocheck -> __get_mem_8 > > Yes, I understood that. My concern was for the times that the address was > __user as we'd no longer get that check for them. Check __user ptr at __get_user() has the same effect? Is this understanding correct? Thanks, Tong. > > Thanks, > drew > > .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists