netdev - Re: [PATCH 7/8] percpu: add __percpu sparse annotations to hw

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: <20100126021041.GN5087@nowhere>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:10:42 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, tytso@....edu, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	aelder@....com, hch@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
	borislav.petkov@....com, ying.huang@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org,
	neilb@...e.de, cl@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] percpu: add __percpu sparse annotations to
	hw_breakpoint

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 03:01:14AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:19:04AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On 01/26/2010 10:02 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Well, sorry I must be missing something obvious, but is it impossible
> > > to make per_cpu(var, cpu) returning something cast in:
> > > 
> > > 	(typeof(var) __force)
> > > 
> > > Or I guess you did that already and it is not working with static
> > > arrays, or?
> > 
> > Yeap, the definition looks like
> > 
> >  #define SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(__p, __offset)	({			\
> > 	__verify_pcpu_ptr((__p));					\
> > 	RELOC_HIDE((typeof(*(__p)) __kernel __force *)(__p), (__offset)); \
> >  })
> > 
> >  #define per_cpu(var, cpu) \
> > 	(*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&(var), per_cpu_offset(cpu)))
> > 
> > but it just ends up putting the __force at the wrong layer.  It seems
> > that (typeof(var) __kernel __force) tell sparse var is in the kernel
> > address space but not its members.
> 
> 
> So, may be it considers you are applying the address space overriding
> to the pointer to the type and not to the type itself.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> 	int __percpu i;
> 
> What you do above *might* be considered as if SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR
> returns something of a type:
> 
> 	int * __percpu i;
> 
> So the pointer is in the normal address space, but its content is in
> __percpu address space.
> 
> What if you do this:
> 
> 
> #define SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(__p, __offset)      ({                      \
>       __verify_pcpu_ptr((__p));                                       \
>       RELOC_HIDE((__p), (__offset)); \
> })
> 
> #define per_cpu(var, cpu) \
>       (typeof(var) __kernel __force)(*SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(&(var), per_cpu_offset(cpu)))
> 
> This should work because &(var) should be dereferencable directly, since
> it is not of type "__force t" but of type "*__force t"
> 
> And you're not doing anymore this:
> 
> 	*(int * __kernel __force) i;
> but
> 	*(int __kernel __force *) i;



The above is perhaps a bit confusing.
To be more clear, in the first case you only cast the pointer
to the type, which gives you a pointer valid in kernel space
to data valid in percpu space.

The second case gives you something valid in kernel space for both.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html