From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Mathieu Desnoyers' <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Arjun Roy <arjunroy@google.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] rseq: optimise for 64bit arches
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:06:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56c227c1defe4b9ca9c6a75537234e20@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <644332839.71291.1618323708305.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Sent: 13 April 2021 15:22
...
> > David
> >
> >> So I suppose that if we're going to #ifdef this, we might as well do the
> >> whole thing.
> >>
> >> Mathieu; did I forget a reason why this cannot work?
>
> The only difference it brings on 32-bit is that the truncation of high bits
> will be done before the following validation:
>
> if (!ptr) {
> memset(rseq_cs, 0, sizeof(*rseq_cs));
> return 0;
> }
> if (ptr >= TASK_SIZE)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> The question is whether we really want to issue a segmentation fault if 32-bit
> user-space has set non-zero high bits, or if silently ignoring those high
> bits is acceptable.
Well, 32bit programs running on 64bit kernels better zero the 'padding'.
It is a shame that the 32bit compilers don't have an attribute(64bit)
for pointers.
> ...
> I am always reluctant to use long/unsigned long type as type for the get/put_user
> (x) argument, because it hides the cast deep within architecture-specific macros.
> I understand that in this specific case it happens that on 64-bit archs we end up
> casting a u64 to unsigned long (same size), and on 32-bit archs we end up casting a
> u32 to unsigned long (also same size), so there is no practical concern about type
> promotion and sign-extension, but I think it would be better to have something
> explicit, e.g.:
If the ABI passes small structures in registers (most modern ones)
then user pointers probably ought to be encapsulated in a structure.
Possibly as a pointer to an unknown structure.
That would force all the required type checking.
Unfortunately the fallout/churn would be massive.
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> static int rseq_get_cs_ptr(struct rseq_cs __user **uptrp, struct rseq_cs *rseq_cs)
> {
> u64 ptr;
>
> if (get_user(ptr, &rseq_cs->ptr64))
> return -EFAULT;
> *ptrp = (struct rseq_cs __user *)ptr;
> return 0;
> }
> #else
> static int rseq_get_cs_ptr(struct rseq_cs __user **uptrp, struct rseq_cs *rseq_cs)
> {
> u32 ptr;
>
> if (get_user(ptr, &rseq_cs->ptr.ptr32))
> return -EFAULT;
> *ptrp = (struct rseq_cs __user *)ptr;
> return 0;
> }
> #endif
Hmmm... too much replication.
You could do:
#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
#define PTR_TYPE u64
#define PTR_FLD ptr64
#else
#define PTR_TYPE u32
#define PTR_FLD ptr32
#endif
Then have one copy of the code and the #undefs.
...
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-13 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-13 7:36 [PATCH 0/3] rseq: minor optimizations Eric Dumazet
2021-04-13 7:36 ` [PATCH 1/3] rseq: optimize rseq_update_cpu_id() Eric Dumazet
2021-04-13 14:29 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-04-13 15:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-04-13 7:36 ` [PATCH 2/3] rseq: remove redundant access_ok() Eric Dumazet
2021-04-13 14:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-04-13 15:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-04-13 7:36 ` [PATCH 3/3] rseq: optimise for 64bit arches Eric Dumazet
2021-04-13 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-13 10:36 ` David Laight
2021-04-13 14:21 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-04-13 15:06 ` David Laight [this message]
2021-04-13 15:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=56c227c1defe4b9ca9c6a75537234e20@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=arjunroy@google.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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).