[PATCH] arm64: Rework valid_user_regs
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: 2016-02-10 12:31:10
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:58:53AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Mark, On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:11:41PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:quoted
+/* + * Bits which are architecturally RES0 per ARM DDI 0487A.h + * The kernel matches the HW policy. Userspace cannot use these until they have + * an architectural meaning. + */ +#define SPSR_EL1_AARCH64_RES0_BITS \ + (GENMASK_ULL(63,32) | GENMASK_ULL(27, 22) | GENMASK_ULL(19, 10) | \ + GENMASK_ULL(5, 5)) +#define SPSR_EL1_AARCH32_RES0_BITS \ + (GENMASK_ULL(63,32) | (GENMASK_ULL(23, 22)))The J bit (24) is also RES0 and the E bit (9) can be RES0/RES1 depending on what the CPU supports.
From a quick look, J is always RES0 for ARMv8. I'll add that to the
mask. E is a bit more complex; I'll see about handling that dynamically in valid_compat_user_regs.
It also might be worth negating these in the definition, rather than on every use.
Does that make anything clearer? They're constants which get used once each, and SPSR_EL1_AARCH*_MASK wouldn't make it clear what the bits actually are. If you have a better suggestion for a name I'm happy to change it.
quoted
+static int valid_aa32_regs(struct user_pt_regs *regs)valid_compat_user_regs
Ok
quoted
+static int valid_aa64_regs(struct user_pt_regs *regs)valid_native_user_regs
Ok.
quoted
+{ + regs->pstate &= ~SPSR_EL1_AARCH64_RES0_BITS; + + if (user_mode(regs) && !(regs->pstate & PSR_MODE32_BIT) && + (regs->pstate & PSR_D_BIT) == 0 && + (regs->pstate & PSR_A_BIT) == 0 && + (regs->pstate & PSR_I_BIT) == 0 && + (regs->pstate & PSR_F_BIT) == 0) { + return 1; + }I think we should err on the side of caution and nuke SS and IL for both native and compat too, although that seems a odds with the PSR_s mask. I wonder how relevant those PSR groups are in ARMv8...
Ok. I couldn't spot anything in the ARM ARM regarding PSR bit groups,; I was cargo-culting from the existing code. I'm more than happy to make the PSR_* groups an aarch32/compat thing.
quoted
+int valid_user_regs(struct user_pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *task) +{ + if (is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(task)))is_compat_task
Can't do; is_compat_task() takes no task_struct and assumes we're asking about current (which doesn't work for the ptrace cases). We could add a new helper for this, but I think that should be future cleanup as we'd want to alter the other uses: [mark at leverpostej:~/src/linux]% git grep is_compat_thread origin/master origin/master:arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h:static inline int is_compat_thread(struct thread_info *thread) origin/master:arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h:static inline int is_compat_thread(struct thread_info *thread) origin/master:arch/arm64/include/asm/processor.h: if (is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(t))) \ origin/master:arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c: return tsk && is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(tsk)); origin/master:arch/arm64/kernel/perf_regs.c: if (is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(task))) origin/master:arch/arm64/kernel/process.c: if (is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(p))) origin/master:arch/arm64/kernel/process.c: tpidrro = is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(next)) ? origin/master:arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c: else if (is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(task))) I'm happy to look at cleaning that up as a later patch/series. Thanks, Mark.