<[email protected]>,Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>,Paolo Bonzini 
<[email protected]>,Dmitry Safonov <[email protected]>,Borislav Petkov 
<[email protected]>,Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]>,Brian Gerst 
<[email protected]>,Jan Beulich <[email protected]>,Christian Borntraeger 
<[email protected]>,Fenghua Yu <[email protected]>,He Chen 
<[email protected]>,Russell King <[email protected]>,Vladimir Murzin 
<[email protected]>,Will Deacon <[email protected]>,Catalin Marinas 
<[email protected]>,Mark Rutland <[email protected]>,James Morse 
<[email protected]>,"David A . Long" <[email protected]>,Pratyush Anand 
<[email protected]>,Laura Abbott <[email protected]>,Andre Przywara 
<[email protected]>,Chris Metcalf 
<[email protected]>,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
From: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

On March 11, 2017 1:42:00 AM PST, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>* Thomas Garnier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Implement specific usage of verify_pre_usermode_state for user-mode
>> returns for x86.
>> ---
>> Based on next-20170308
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/Kconfig                        |  1 +
>>  arch/x86/entry/common.c                 |  3 +++
>>  arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S               | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h        | 11 -----------
>>  5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> index 005df7c825f5..6d48e18e6f09 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ config X86
>>      select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_ACPI_PDC         if ACPI
>>      select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_PARPORT
>>      select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_SERIO
>> +    select ARCH_NO_SYSCALL_VERIFY_PRE_USERMODE_STATE
>>      select ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW
>>      select ARCH_SUPPORTS_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT
>>      select ARCH_SUPPORTS_NUMA_BALANCING     if X86_64
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/common.c b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> index 370c42c7f046..525edbb77f03 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/context_tracking.h>
>>  #include <linux/user-return-notifier.h>
>>  #include <linux/uprobes.h>
>> +#include <linux/syscalls.h>
>>  
>>  #include <asm/desc.h>
>>  #include <asm/traps.h>
>> @@ -180,6 +181,8 @@ __visible inline void
>prepare_exit_to_usermode(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>      struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info();
>>      u32 cached_flags;
>>  
>> +    verify_pre_usermode_state();
>> +
>>      if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) && WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
>>              local_irq_disable();
>>  
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> index d2b2a2948ffe..04db589be466 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> @@ -218,6 +218,25 @@ entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath:
>>      testl   $_TIF_ALLWORK_MASK, TASK_TI_flags(%r11)
>>      jnz     1f
>>  
>> +    /*
>> +     * Check user-mode state on fast path return, the same check is
>done
>> +     * under the slow path through syscall_return_slowpath.
>> +     */
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION
>> +    call    verify_pre_usermode_state
>> +#else
>> +    /*
>> +     * Similar to set_fs(USER_DS) in verify_pre_usermode_state without
>a
>> +     * warning.
>> +     */
>> +    movq    PER_CPU_VAR(current_task), %rax
>> +    movq    $TASK_SIZE_MAX, %rcx
>> +    cmp     %rcx, TASK_addr_limit(%rax)
>> +    jz      1f
>> +    movq    %rcx, TASK_addr_limit(%rax)
>> +1:
>> +#endif
>> +
>>      LOCKDEP_SYS_EXIT
>>      TRACE_IRQS_ON           /* user mode is traced as IRQs on */
>>      movq    RIP(%rsp), %rcx
>
>Ugh, so you call an assembly function just to ... call another
>function.
>
>Plus why is it in assembly to begin with? Is this some older code that
>got
>written when the x86 entry code was in assembly, and never properly
>converted to C?
>
>Thanks,
>
>       Ingo

The code does a compare to jump around a store.  It would be much cleaner and 
faster to simply clobber the value unconditionally.  If there is a test it 
should be to avoid the function call, not (only) the assignment.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Reply via email to