[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <718fb1d7-9f0c-4637-abe8-5a34305c3ae2@ghiti.fr>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 14:35:58 +0200
From: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
To: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] riscv: uaccess: do not do misaligned accesses in
get/put_user()
On 5/30/25 22:56, Clément Léger wrote:
> Doing misaligned access to userspace memory would make a trap on
> platform where it is emulated. Latest fixes removed the kernel
> capability to do unaligned accesses to userspace memory safely since
> interrupts are kept disabled at all time during that. Thus doing so
> would crash the kernel.
>
> Such behavior was detected with GET_UNALIGN_CTL() that was doing
> a put_user() with an unsigned long* address that should have been an
> unsigned int*. Reenabling kernel misaligned access emulation is a bit
> risky and it would also degrade performances. Rather than doing that,
> we will try to avoid any misaligned accessed by using copy_from/to_user()
> which does not do any misaligned accesses. This can be done only for
> !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS and thus allows to only generate
> a bit more code for this config.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h
> index 046de7ced09c..b542c05f394f 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -169,8 +169,21 @@ do { \
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_64BIT */
>
> +unsigned long __must_check __asm_copy_to_user(void __user *to,
> + const void *from, unsigned long n);
> +unsigned long __must_check __asm_copy_from_user(void *to,
> + const void __user *from, unsigned long n);
> +
> #define __get_user_nocheck(x, __gu_ptr, label) \
> do { \
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)) { \
> + if (!IS_ALIGNED((uintptr_t)__gu_ptr, sizeof(*__gu_ptr))) { \
Nit: I would use && instead of 2 ifs.
> + if (__asm_copy_from_user(&(x), __gu_ptr, sizeof(*__gu_ptr))) \
> + goto label; \
> + else \
> + break; \
Here I would remove the else
> + } \
> + } \
> switch (sizeof(*__gu_ptr)) { \
> case 1: \
> __get_user_asm("lb", (x), __gu_ptr, label); \
> @@ -297,6 +310,15 @@ do { \
>
> #define __put_user_nocheck(x, __gu_ptr, label) \
> do { \
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)) { \
> + if (!IS_ALIGNED((uintptr_t)__gu_ptr, sizeof(*__gu_ptr))) { \
> + unsigned long val = (unsigned long)(x); \
Here it sems like __inttype(*(__gu_ptr)) is more accurate than unsigned
long, even though I think unsigned long works fine too.
> + if (__asm_copy_to_user(__gu_ptr, &(val), sizeof(*__gu_ptr))) \
> + goto label; \
> + else \
> + break; \
> + } \
> + } \
> switch (sizeof(*__gu_ptr)) { \
> case 1: \
> __put_user_asm("sb", (x), __gu_ptr, label); \
> @@ -385,12 +407,6 @@ err_label: \
> -EFAULT; \
> })
>
> -
> -unsigned long __must_check __asm_copy_to_user(void __user *to,
> - const void *from, unsigned long n);
> -unsigned long __must_check __asm_copy_from_user(void *to,
> - const void __user *from, unsigned long n);
> -
> static inline unsigned long
> raw_copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from, unsigned long n)
> {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists