From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
ruscur@russell.cc, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: GCC bug ? Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] powerpc/32s: Implement Kernel Userspace Access Protection
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:52:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <af9ad296-401c-cb5c-868a-7a6f91d1e8bc@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200121195501.GJ3191@gate.crashing.org>
Le 21/01/2020 à 20:55, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:22:32PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> g1() should return 3, not 5.
>
> What makes you say that?
What makes me say that is that NULL is obviously a constant pointer and
I think we are all expecting gcc to see it as a constant during kernel
build, ie at -O2
>
> "A return of 0 does not indicate that the
> value is _not_ a constant, but merely that GCC cannot prove it is a
> constant with the specified value of the '-O' option."
>
> (And the rules it uses for this are *not* the same as C "constant
> expressions" or C "integer constant expression" or C "arithmetic
> constant expression" or anything like that -- which should be already
> obvious from that it changes with different -Ox).
>
> You can use builtin_constant_p to have the compiler do something better
> if the compiler feels like it, but not anything more. Often people
> want stronger guarantees, but when they see how much less often it then
> returns "true", they do not want that either.
>
in asm/book3s/64/kup-radix.h we have:
static inline void allow_user_access(void __user *to, const void __user
*from,
unsigned long size)
{
// This is written so we can resolve to a single case at build time
if (__builtin_constant_p(to) && to == NULL)
set_kuap(AMR_KUAP_BLOCK_WRITE);
else if (__builtin_constant_p(from) && from == NULL)
set_kuap(AMR_KUAP_BLOCK_READ);
else
set_kuap(0);
}
and in asm/kup.h we have:
static inline void allow_read_from_user(const void __user *from,
unsigned long size)
{
allow_user_access(NULL, from, size);
}
static inline void allow_write_to_user(void __user *to, unsigned long size)
{
allow_user_access(to, NULL, size);
}
If GCC doesn't see NULL as a constant, then the above doesn't work as
expected.
What's surprising and frustrating is that if you remove the
__builtin_constant_p() and only leave the NULL check, then GCC sees it
as a constant and drops the other leg.
So if we remove the __builtin_constant_p(to) and leave only the (to ==
NULL), it will work as expected for allow_read_from_user(). But for the
others where (to) is not a constant, the NULL test will remain together
with the associated leg.
Christophe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-22 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-11 8:30 [PATCH v2 00/10] Kernel Userspace protection for PPC32 Christophe Leroy
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] powerpc/6xx: fix setup and use of SPRN_SPRG_PGDIR for hash32 Christophe Leroy
2019-03-20 13:04 ` [v2, " Michael Ellerman
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] powerpc/mm: Detect bad KUAP faults (Squash of v5 series) Christophe Leroy
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] powerpc/32: Remove MSR_PR test when returning from syscall Christophe Leroy
2019-04-21 14:18 ` [v2, " Michael Ellerman
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] powerpc/32: Prepare for Kernel Userspace Access Protection Christophe Leroy
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] powerpc/8xx: Only define APG0 and APG1 Christophe Leroy
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] powerpc/8xx: Add Kernel Userspace Execution Prevention Christophe Leroy
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] powerpc/8xx: Add Kernel Userspace Access Protection Christophe Leroy
2019-04-18 6:53 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] powerpc/32s: Implement Kernel Userspace Execution Prevention Christophe Leroy
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] powerpc/32s: Prepare Kernel Userspace Access Protection Christophe Leroy
2019-03-11 8:30 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] powerpc/32s: Implement " Christophe Leroy
2019-04-18 6:55 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-04-23 9:26 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-21 17:22 ` GCC bug ? " Christophe Leroy
2020-01-21 19:55 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-01-22 6:52 ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
2020-01-22 13:36 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-01-22 14:45 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-22 6:57 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-22 13:18 ` Segher Boessenkool
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=af9ad296-401c-cb5c-868a-7a6f91d1e8bc@c-s.fr \
--to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=ruscur@russell.cc \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).