[PATCH v2 20/31] arm64: User access library function
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: 2012-08-15 14:50:07
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote:
+/*
+ * Single-value transfer routines. They automatically use the right
+ * size if we just have the right pointer type. Note that the functions
+ * which read from user space (*get_*) need to take care not to leak
+ * kernel data even if the calling code is buggy and fails to check
+ * the return value. This means zeroing out the destination variable
+ * or buffer on error. Normally this is done out of line by the
+ * fixup code, but there are a few places where it intrudes on the
+ * main code path. When we only write to user space, there is no
+ * problem.
+ */
+extern long __get_user_1(void *);
+extern long __get_user_2(void *);
+extern long __get_user_4(void *);
+extern long __get_user_8(void *);
+
+#define __get_user_x(__r2,__p,__e,__s,__i...) \
+ asm volatile( \
+ __asmeq("%0", "x0") __asmeq("%1", "x2") \
+ "bl __get_user_" #__s \
+ : "=&r" (__e), "=r" (__r2) \
+ : "0" (__p) \
+ : __i, "cc")
+
+#define get_user(x,p) \
+ ({ \
+ register const typeof(*(p)) __user *__p asm("x0") = (p);\
+ register unsigned long __r2 asm("x2"); \
+ register long __e asm("x0"); \
+ switch (sizeof(*(__p))) { \
+ case 1: \
+ __get_user_x(__r2, __p, __e, 1, "x30"); \
+ break; \
+ case 2: \
+ __get_user_x(__r2, __p, __e, 2, "x3", "x30"); \
+ break; \
+ case 4: \
+ __get_user_x(__r2, __p, __e, 4, "x30"); \
+ break; \
+ case 8: \
+ __get_user_x(__r2, __p, __e, 8, "x30"); \
+ break; \
+ default: __e = __get_user_bad(); break; \
+ } \
+ x = (typeof(*(p))) __r2; \
+ __e; \
+ })It's fairly unusual to have out of line get_user/put_user functions. What is the reason for this, other than copying from ARM?
+ +__get_user_bad: + mov x2, #0 + mov x0, #-EFAULT + ret +ENDPROC(__get_user_bad)
+__put_user_bad: + mov x0, #-EFAULT + ret +ENDPROC(__put_user_bad) +
The purpose of these symbols is to provoke a link error when you pass the wrong data into get_user/put_user. Actually defining them completely breaks this logic, so you should remove these! Arnd