* [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro
@ 2019-02-25 19:11 Borislav Petkov
2019-02-25 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-25 22:43 ` [tip:x86/cleanups] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2019-02-25 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML
Cc: Andy Lutomirski, Jann Horn, Linus Torvalds, Peter Zijlstra,
the arch/x86 maintainers, Tobin C. Harding
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery.
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@kernel.org>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 780f2b42c8ef..e2ffedd51fd8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -35,10 +35,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
}
#define segment_eq(a, b) ((a).seg == (b).seg)
-
#define user_addr_max() (current->thread.addr_limit.seg)
-#define __addr_ok(addr) \
- ((unsigned long __force)(addr) < user_addr_max())
/*
* Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address.
--
2.21.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro 2019-02-25 19:11 [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro Borislav Petkov @ 2019-02-25 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-02-25 19:42 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-02-25 22:43 ` [tip:x86/cleanups] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Linus Torvalds @ 2019-02-25 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Borislav Petkov Cc: LKML, Andy Lutomirski, Jann Horn, Peter Zijlstra, the arch/x86 maintainers, Tobin C. Harding On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:11 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote: > > This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery. Heh. You should probably have researched _when_ it became unused. That seems to have happened in commit 5723aa993d83 ("x86: use the new generic strnlen_user() function") which removed the single user from the x86-32 version of strnlen_user(), which used to have unsigned long mask = -__addr_ok(s); in it. Way back in 2012. Ack. Linus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro 2019-02-25 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2019-02-25 19:42 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-02-25 21:08 ` Joe Perches 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Borislav Petkov @ 2019-02-25 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: LKML, Andy Lutomirski, Jann Horn, Peter Zijlstra, the arch/x86 maintainers, Tobin C. Harding On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:11 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote: > > > > This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery. > > Heh. > > You should probably have researched _when_ it became unused. > > That seems to have happened in commit 5723aa993d83 ("x86: use the new > generic strnlen_user() function") which removed the single user from > the x86-32 version of strnlen_user(), which used to have > > unsigned long mask = -__addr_ok(s); Yap, found it. I still have $ git log -p -G__addr_ok --pickaxe-all in one of the shells' history here. I'll add that to the commit message. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro 2019-02-25 19:42 ` Borislav Petkov @ 2019-02-25 21:08 ` Joe Perches 2019-03-04 6:47 ` Christian Kujau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Joe Perches @ 2019-02-25 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Borislav Petkov, Linus Torvalds Cc: LKML, Andy Lutomirski, Jann Horn, Peter Zijlstra, the arch/x86 maintainers, Tobin C. Harding On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 20:42 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:11 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote: > > > This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery. > > > > Heh. > > > > You should probably have researched _when_ it became unused. > > > > That seems to have happened in commit 5723aa993d83 ("x86: use the new > > generic strnlen_user() function") which removed the single user from > > the x86-32 version of strnlen_user(), which used to have > > > > unsigned long mask = -__addr_ok(s); > > Yap, found it. I still have > > $ git log -p -G__addr_ok --pickaxe-all > > in one of the shells' history here. > > I'll add that to the commit message. > > Thx. Looks like it's not used in several arches $ git grep -w __addr_ok arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) ((void)(addr), 1) arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) (access_ok(addr, 0)) arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) ((unsigned long) addr < get_fs()) arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) \ arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h: __ao_end >= __ao_a && __addr_ok(__ao_end); }) arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) \ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro 2019-02-25 21:08 ` Joe Perches @ 2019-03-04 6:47 ` Christian Kujau 2019-03-27 13:15 ` Borislav Petkov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Christian Kujau @ 2019-03-04 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Perches; +Cc: Borislav Petkov, LKML On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, Joe Perches wrote: > Looks like it's not used in several arches > > $ git grep -w __addr_ok > arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) ((void)(addr), 1) > arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) (access_ok(addr, 0)) > arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) ((unsigned long) addr < get_fs()) > arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) \ > arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h: __ao_end >= __ao_a && __addr_ok(__ao_end); }) > arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) \ If so, would simly removing it do the trick or is there more magic involved? I don't have that many cross-compilers though and it's not even build-tested: commit f899653c64cce05fde426d0298cd67670f8ab8e2 Author: Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de> Date: Sun Mar 3 22:43:09 2019 -0800 Remove unused __addr_ok() macro. arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h | 1 - arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h | 2 -- arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 3 --- arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h | 5 +---- arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 2 -- 5 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-) Signed-off-by: Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h index 42aa4a22803c..16411c76076d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h @@ -266,7 +266,6 @@ extern int __put_user_8(void *, unsigned long long); #define USER_DS KERNEL_DS #define segment_eq(a, b) (1) -#define __addr_ok(addr) ((void)(addr), 1) #define __range_ok(addr, size) ((void)(addr), 0) #define get_fs() (KERNEL_DS) diff --git a/arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h index eaa1c3403a42..c02b243fecaa 100644 --- a/arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h +++ b/arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h @@ -24,8 +24,6 @@ static inline int access_ok(const void *addr, unsigned long size) ((unsigned long)(addr + size) < limit)); } -#define __addr_ok(addr) (access_ok(addr, 0)) - extern int __put_user_bad(void); /* diff --git a/arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h index a44682c8adc3..9198371e30c2 100644 --- a/arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h +++ b/arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h @@ -55,9 +55,6 @@ */ #define __range_ok(addr, size) (size <= get_fs() && addr <= (get_fs()-size)) -/* Ensure that addr is below task's addr_limit */ -#define __addr_ok(addr) ((unsigned long) addr < get_fs()) - #define access_ok(addr, size) \ ({ \ unsigned long __ao_addr = (unsigned long)(addr); \ diff --git a/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h index 5fe751ad7582..b41f6a011474 100644 --- a/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h +++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h @@ -5,9 +5,6 @@ #include <asm/segment.h> #include <asm/extable.h> -#define __addr_ok(addr) \ - ((unsigned long __force)(addr) < current_thread_info()->addr_limit.seg) - /* * __access_ok: Check if address with size is OK or not. * @@ -19,7 +16,7 @@ #define __access_ok(addr, size) ({ \ unsigned long __ao_a = (addr), __ao_b = (size); \ unsigned long __ao_end = __ao_a + __ao_b - !!__ao_b; \ - __ao_end >= __ao_a && __addr_ok(__ao_end); }) + __ao_end >= __ao_a; }) #define access_ok(addr, size) \ (__chk_user_ptr(addr), \ diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h index c1334aaaa78d..d630978738dc 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h @@ -37,8 +37,6 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs) #define segment_eq(a, b) ((a).seg == (b).seg) #define user_addr_max() (current->thread.addr_limit.seg) -#define __addr_ok(addr) \ - ((unsigned long __force)(addr) < user_addr_max()) /* * Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address. -- BOFH excuse #123: user to computer ratio too high. ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro 2019-03-04 6:47 ` Christian Kujau @ 2019-03-27 13:15 ` Borislav Petkov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Borislav Petkov @ 2019-03-27 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christian Kujau; +Cc: Joe Perches, LKML On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 10:47:00PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote: > If so, would simly removing it do the trick or is there more magic > involved? I don't have that many cross-compilers though and it's not even > build-tested: There are cross compilers here: https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ which you can use. And perhaps splitting that patch per architecture and letting arch maintainers apply each, would be easier. I think. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [tip:x86/cleanups] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro 2019-02-25 19:11 [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro Borislav Petkov 2019-02-25 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds @ 2019-02-25 22:43 ` tip-bot for Borislav Petkov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: tip-bot for Borislav Petkov @ 2019-02-25 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-tip-commits Cc: tobin, jannh, linux-kernel, tglx, peterz, bp, torvalds, x86, luto, mingo, hpa Commit-ID: 2e7614c0736de93c8796bb2d58debb8871a59db8 Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/2e7614c0736de93c8796bb2d58debb8871a59db8 Author: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> AuthorDate: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:08:27 +0100 Committer: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> CommitDate: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:13:05 +0100 x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery. It's last user, the 32-bit version of strnlen_user() went away with 5723aa993d83 ("x86: use the new generic strnlen_user() function") so drop it. No functional changes. Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org> Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@kernel.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190225191109.7671-1-bp@alien8.de --- arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h index a77445d1b034..ec8d36f04786 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h @@ -35,10 +35,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs) } #define segment_eq(a, b) ((a).seg == (b).seg) - #define user_addr_max() (current->thread.addr_limit.seg) -#define __addr_ok(addr) \ - ((unsigned long __force)(addr) < user_addr_max()) /* * Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address. ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-03-27 13:15 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-02-25 19:11 [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro Borislav Petkov 2019-02-25 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-02-25 19:42 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-02-25 21:08 ` Joe Perches 2019-03-04 6:47 ` Christian Kujau 2019-03-27 13:15 ` Borislav Petkov 2019-02-25 22:43 ` [tip:x86/cleanups] " tip-bot for Borislav Petkov
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.