Re: [PATCH for 4.18 2/6] rseq: use get_user/put_user rather than __get_user/__put_user
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Date: 2018-07-10 13:48:58
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
----- On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Michael Ellerman mpe@ellerman.id.au wrote:
Mathieu Desnoyers [off-list ref] writes:quoted
----- On Jul 8, 2018, at 5:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:quoted
In preparation to use __u64 for the rseq_cs pointer field, 32-bit architectures need to read this 64-bit value located in user-space addresses. __get_user is used to read this value, given that its access check has already been performed with access_ok() on rseq registration. arm does not implement 8-byte __get_user. Rather than trying to improve __get_user on ARM, use get_user/put_user across rseq instead. If those end up showing up in benchmarks, the proper approach would be to use user_access_begin() / unsafe_get/put_user() / user_access_end() anyway.So, another twist to this story: ppc32 does not implement u64 get_user().Or __get_user() for that matter. But we should just fix it. We have the asm to do it, it's just the fact that __gu_val is unsigned long causes the size > sizeof(x) check here to fail: #define __get_user_size(x, ptr, size, retval) \ do { \ retval = 0; \ __chk_user_ptr(ptr); \ if (size > sizeof(x)) \ (x) = __get_user_bad(); \ We seem to be able to fix that with the __inttype() trick that x86 uses. That's probably not 4.18 material though. But if you want to go with copy_from_user() for now you could then switch to get_user() for 4.19.
I agree. Let's use copy_from_user() for 4.18. Once get_user() ends up supporting u64 on ppc32 for 4.19, rseq will happily move back to it. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com