linux-kernel - Re: [patch V3 02/12] uaccess: Provide ASM GOTO safe wrappers for unsafe_*

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: <8901f58d-3c3e-4d22-af7e-e28613a76a16@efficios.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:48:33 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
 Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>,
 Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
 Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
 Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
 Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, André Almeida
 <andrealmeid@...lia.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch V3 02/12] uaccess: Provide ASM GOTO safe wrappers for
 unsafe_*_user()

On 2025-10-17 08:43, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[... remembering to trim ...]

>>   long strnlen_user_nofault(const void __user *unsafe_addr, long count);
>> -#ifndef __get_kernel_nofault
>> +#ifdef arch_get_kernel_nofault
One more thing:

This is removing the leading __ from __get_kernel_nofault, which
AFAIR has a defined semantic about needing explicit checks. Is that
on purpose ? IOW, would you rather have __arch_get_kernel_nofault ?

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com