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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to