Re: [PATCH v12 01/12] lib: introduce copy_struct_{to,from}_user helpers

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 12:49:44AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 09:00:03AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+			return -EFAULT;
+	}
+	/* Copy the interoperable parts of the struct. */
+	if (__copy_to_user(dst, src, size))
+		return -EFAULT;

Why not simply clear_user() and copy_to_user()?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean -- are you asking why we need to
do memchr_inv(src + size, 0, rest) earlier?

I'm asking why bother with __ and separate access_ok().

quoted

quoted

	if ((unsigned long)addr & 1) {
		u8 v;
		if (get_user(v, (__u8 __user *)addr))
			return -EFAULT;
		if (v)
			return -E2BIG;
		addr++;
	}
	if ((unsigned long)addr & 2) {
		u16 v;
		if (get_user(v, (__u16 __user *)addr))
			return -EFAULT;
		if (v)
			return -E2BIG;
		addr +=2;
	}
	if ((unsigned long)addr & 4) {
		u32 v;
		if (get_user(v, (__u32 __user *)addr))
			return -EFAULT;
		if (v)
			return -E2BIG;
	}
	<read the rest like you currently do>

Actually, this is a dumb way to do it - page size on anything
is going to be a multiple of 8, so you could just as well
read 8 bytes from an address aligned down.  Then mask the
bytes you don't want to check out and see if there's anything
left.

You can have readability boundaries inside a page - it's either
the entire page (let alone a single word) being readable, or
it's EFAULT for all parts.

quoted

quoted

would be saner, and things like x86 could trivially add an
asm variant - it's not hard.  Incidentally, memchr_inv() is
an overkill in this case...

Why is memchr_inv() overkill?

Look at its implementation; you only care if there are
non-zeroes, you don't give a damn where in the buffer
the first one would be.  All you need is the same logics
as in "from userland" case
	if (!count)
		return true;
	offset = (unsigned long)from & 7
	p = (u64 *)(from - offset);
	v = *p++;
	if (offset) {	// unaligned
		count += offset;
		v &= ~aligned_byte_mask(offset); // see strnlen_user.c
	}
	while (count > 8) {
		if (v)
			return false;
		v = *p++;
		count -= 8;
	}
	if (count != 8)
		v &= aligned_byte_mask(count);
	return v == 0;

All there is to it...

... and __user case would be pretty much this with
	if (user_access_begin(from, count)) {
		....
		user_access_end();
	}
wrapped around the damn thing - again, see strnlen_user.c, with
	unsafe_get_user(v, p++, efault);
instead of those
	v = *p++;

Calling conventions might need some thinking - it might be
	* all read, all zeroes
	* non-zero found
	* read failed
so we probably want to map the "all zeroes" case to 0,
"read failed" to -EFAULT and "non-zero found" to something
else.  Might be positive, might be some other -E.... - not
sure if E2BIG (or EFBIG) makes much sense here.  Need to
look at the users...