* Thomas Garnier [off-list ref] wrote:

+
+/*
+ * Called before coming back to user-mode. Returning to user-mode with an
+ * address limit different than USER_DS can allow to overwrite kernel memory.
+ */
+static inline void addr_limit_check_syscall(void)
+{
+	BUG_ON(!segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS));
+}
+
+#ifndef CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
+#define __CHECK_USERMODE_SYSCALL() \
+	bool user_caller = segment_eq(get_fs(), USER_DS)
+#define __VERIFY_ADDR_LIMIT() \
+	if (user_caller) addr_limit_check_syscall()
+#else
+#define __CHECK_USERMODE_SYSCALL()
+#define __VERIFY_ADDR_LIMIT()
+asmlinkage void addr_limit_check_failed(void) __noreturn;
+#endif

_Please_ harmonize all the externally exposed names and symbols.

There's no reason for this mismash of names:

	CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK

	__CHECK_USERMODE_SYSCALL
	__VERIFY_ADDR_LIMIT

When we could just as easily name them consistently, along the existing pattern:

	CONFIG_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK

	__SYSCALL_ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK
	__ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK

which should fit into existing nomenclature:

 #define __SYSCALL_DEFINEx(x, name, ...)					\

But even with that fixed, the whole construct still looks pretty weird:

 	{								\
-		long ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__));	\
+		long ret;						\
+		__CHECK_USERMODE_SYSCALL();				\
+		ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__));	\
+		__ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK();					\
 		__MAP(x,__SC_TEST,__VA_ARGS__);				\
 		__PROTECT(x, ret,__MAP(x,__SC_ARGS,__VA_ARGS__));	\
 		return ret;						\

I think something like this would be more natural to read:

+		ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE();					\
+		ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__));	\
+		ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_POST();				\

it's a clear pre/post construct. Also note the lack of double underscores.

BTW., a further simplification would be:

#ifndef ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE
# define ADDR_LIMIT_CHECK_PRE ...
#endif

This way architectures could override this generic functionality simply by 
defining the helpers. Architectures that don't do that get the generic version. 

Thanks,

	Ingo