linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/signal: Silence spurious sparse warning storing GCSPR

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]

Message-ID: <Z1hNllCWa4u-IxrH@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:17:58 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/signal: Silence spurious sparse warning storing
 GCSPR_EL0

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:42:53AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> index 14ac6fdb872b9672e4b16a097f1b577aae8dec50..83ea7e5fd2b54566c6649b82b8570657a5711dd4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_GCS
>  #define GCS_SIGNAL_CAP(addr) (((unsigned long)addr) & GCS_CAP_ADDR_MASK)
>  
> -static bool gcs_signal_cap_valid(u64 addr, u64 val)
> +static bool gcs_signal_cap_valid(unsigned long __user *addr, u64 val)
>  {
>  	return val == GCS_SIGNAL_CAP(addr);
>  }
> @@ -1094,15 +1094,15 @@ static int gcs_restore_signal(void)
>  	/*
>  	 * Check that the cap is the actual GCS before replacing it.
>  	 */
> -	if (!gcs_signal_cap_valid((u64)gcspr_el0, cap))
> +	if (!gcs_signal_cap_valid(gcspr_el0, cap))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	/* Invalidate the token to prevent reuse */
> -	put_user_gcs(0, (__user void*)gcspr_el0, &ret);
> +	put_user_gcs(0, gcspr_el0, &ret);
>  	if (ret != 0)
>  		return -EFAULT;
>  
> -	write_sysreg_s(gcspr_el0 + 1, SYS_GCSPR_EL0);
> +	write_sysreg_s((unsigned long)(gcspr_el0 + 1), SYS_GCSPR_EL0);

Would we now get a warning here?

-- 
Catalin