[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230809143801.GA693@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 16:38:01 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Introduce uniptr_t as a generic "universal" pointer
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 04:35:47PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Although sockptr_t is used already in several places as a "universal"
> pointer, it's still too confusing to use it in other subsystems, since
> people see it always as if it were a network-related stuff.
>
> This patch defines a more generic type, uniptr_t, that does exactly as
> same as sockptr_t for a wider use. As of now, it's almost 1:1 copy
> with renames (just with comprehensive header file inclusions).
The original set_fs removal series did that as uptr_t, and Linus
hated it with passion. I somehow doubt he's going to like it more now.
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> ---
>
> This is a RFC patch, or rather a material for bikeshedding.
>
> Initially the discussion started from the use of sockptr_t for the
> sound driver in Andy's patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230721100146.67293-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
> followed by a bigger series of patches by me:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230731154718.31048-1-tiwai@suse.de
>
> The first reaction to the patches (including my own) were
> "why sockptr_t?" Yes, it's just confusing. So, here it is, a
> proposal of defining the new type for the very purpose as sockptr_t.
>
> The name of uniptr_t is nothing but my random pick up, and we can
> endlessly discuss for a better name (genptr_t or whatever).
> I'm totally open for the name.
>
> After this introduction, sockptr_t can be alias of uniptr_t,
> e.g. simply override with "#define sockptr_t uniptr_t" or such.
> How can it be is another open question.
>
> Also, we can clean up the macro implementation along with it;
> there seem a few (rather minor) issues as suggested by Andy:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/ZMlGKy7ibjkQ6ii7@smile.fi.intel.com
>
> Honestly speaking, I don't mind to keep using sockptr_t generically
> despite of the name, if people agree. The rename might make sense,
> though, if it's more widely used in other subsystems in future.
>
>
> Takashi
>
> ===
>
> include/linux/uniptr.h | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/uniptr.h
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/uniptr.h b/include/linux/uniptr.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..f7994d3a45eb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/uniptr.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/*
> + * Support for "universal" pointers that can point to either kernel or userspace
> + * memory.
> + *
> + * Original code from sockptr.h
> + * Copyright (c) 2020 Christoph Hellwig
> + */
> +#ifndef _LINUX_UNIPTR_H
> +#define _LINUX_UNIPTR_H
> +
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/string.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/uaccess.h>
> +
> +typedef struct {
> + union {
> + void *kernel;
> + void __user *user;
> + };
> + bool is_kernel : 1;
> +} uniptr_t;
> +
> +static inline bool uniptr_is_kernel(uniptr_t uniptr)
> +{
> + return uniptr.is_kernel;
> +}
> +
> +static inline uniptr_t KERNEL_UNIPTR(void *p)
> +{
> + return (uniptr_t) { .kernel = p, .is_kernel = true };
> +}
> +
> +static inline uniptr_t USER_UNIPTR(void __user *p)
> +{
> + return (uniptr_t) { .user = p };
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool uniptr_is_null(uniptr_t uniptr)
> +{
> + if (uniptr_is_kernel(uniptr))
> + return !uniptr.kernel;
> + return !uniptr.user;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int copy_from_uniptr_offset(void *dst, uniptr_t src,
> + size_t offset, size_t size)
> +{
> + if (!uniptr_is_kernel(src))
> + return copy_from_user(dst, src.user + offset, size);
> + memcpy(dst, src.kernel + offset, size);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int copy_from_uniptr(void *dst, uniptr_t src, size_t size)
> +{
> + return copy_from_uniptr_offset(dst, src, 0, size);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int copy_to_uniptr_offset(uniptr_t dst, size_t offset,
> + const void *src, size_t size)
> +{
> + if (!uniptr_is_kernel(dst))
> + return copy_to_user(dst.user + offset, src, size);
> + memcpy(dst.kernel + offset, src, size);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int copy_to_uniptr(uniptr_t dst, const void *src, size_t size)
> +{
> + return copy_to_uniptr_offset(dst, 0, src, size);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *memdup_uniptr(uniptr_t src, size_t len)
> +{
> + void *p = kmalloc_track_caller(len, GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
> +
> + if (!p)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + if (copy_from_uniptr(p, src, len)) {
> + kfree(p);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> + }
> + return p;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void *memdup_uniptr_nul(uniptr_t src, size_t len)
> +{
> + char *p = kmalloc_track_caller(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + if (!p)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + if (copy_from_uniptr(p, src, len)) {
> + kfree(p);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
> + }
> + p[len] = '\0';
> + return p;
> +}
> +
> +static inline long strncpy_from_uniptr(char *dst, uniptr_t src, size_t count)
> +{
> + if (uniptr_is_kernel(src)) {
> + size_t len = min(strnlen(src.kernel, count - 1) + 1, count);
> +
> + memcpy(dst, src.kernel, len);
> + return len;
> + }
> + return strncpy_from_user(dst, src.user, count);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int check_zeroed_uniptr(uniptr_t src, size_t offset, size_t size)
> +{
> + if (!uniptr_is_kernel(src))
> + return check_zeroed_user(src.user + offset, size);
> + return memchr_inv(src.kernel + offset, 0, size) == NULL;
> +}
> +
> +#endif /* _LINUX_UNIPTR_H */
> --
> 2.35.3
---end quoted text---
Powered by blists - more mailing lists