[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201023182713.GG2672@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:27:13 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
"linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"keyrings@...r.kernel.org" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-team@...roid.com" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"io-uring@...r.kernel.org" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Greg KH'" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Buggy commit tracked to: "Re: [PATCH 2/9] iov_iter: move rw_copy_check_uvector() into lib/iov_iter.c"
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 06:58:57PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:09:30PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> > Now, I am not a compiler expert, but as I already cited, at least on
> > x86-64 clang expects that the high bits were cleared by the caller - in
> > contrast to gcc. I suspect it's the same on arm64, but again, I am no
> > compiler expert.
> >
> > If what I said and cites for x86-64 is correct, if the function expects
> > an "unsigned int", it will happily use 64bit operations without further
> > checks where valid when assuming high bits are zero. That's why even
> > converting everything to "unsigned int" as proposed by me won't work on
> > clang - it assumes high bits are zero (as indicated by Nick).
> >
> > As I am neither a compiler experts (did I mention that already? ;) ) nor
> > an arm64 experts, I can't tell if this is a compiler BUG or not.
>
> On arm64 when callee expects a 32bit argument, the caller is *not* responsible
> for clearing the upper half of 64bit register used to pass the value - it only
> needs to store the actual value into the lower half. The callee must consider
> the contents of the upper half of that register as undefined. See AAPCS64 (e.g.
> https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/master/aapcs64/aapcs64.rst#parameter-passing-rules
> ); AFAICS, the relevant bit is
> "Unlike in the 32-bit AAPCS, named integral values must be narrowed by
> the callee rather than the caller."
Or the formal rule:
C.9 If the argument is an Integral or Pointer Type, the size of the
argument is less than or equal to 8 bytes and the NGRN is less
than 8, the argument is copied to the least significant bits in
x[NGRN]. The NGRN is incremented by one. The argument has now
been allocated.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists