On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:34 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > +#include
>
> Instead of the asm-generic games, shouldn't we just define access_ok in
> if not already defined by the architecture?
I tried, but couldn't actually make it work because asm/uaccess.h tends
to contain inline functions
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:28 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> > @@ -2794,7 +2794,7 @@ perf_callchain_kernel(struct perf_callchain_entry_ctx
> > *entry, struct pt_regs
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> The __range_not_ok() helper is an x86 (and sparc64) specific interface
> that does roughly the same thing as __access_ok(), but with different
> calling conventions.
>
> Change this to use the normal
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:21PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> Unlike other architectures, the nios2 version of __put_user() has an
> extra check for access_ok(), preventing it from being used to implement
> __put_kernel_nofault().
>
> Split up put_user() along the
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:28PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> test_kernel_ptr() uses access_ok() to figure out if a given address
> points to user space instead of kernel space. However on architectures
> that set CONFIG_ALTERNATE_USER_ADDRESS_SPACE, a pointer can be
Looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:37 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> s/maining/remaining/ ?
>
> Or maybe rather:
>
> uaccess: remove CONFIG_SET_FS
>
> because it is all gone now.
>
> > With CONFIG_SET_FS gone, so drop all remaining references to
> > set_fs()/get_fs(), mm_segment_t and uaccess_kernel().
>
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:15 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:19 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
> > architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
> >
Looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> The get_user()/put_user() functions are meant to check for
> access_ok(), while the __get_user()/__put_user() functions
> don't.
>
> This broke in 4.19 for nds32, when it gained an extraneous
> check in
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
Looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
> +#include
Instead of the asm-generic games, shouldn't we just define access_ok in
if not already defined by the architecture?
___
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:35 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:28PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > test_kernel_ptr() uses access_ok() to figure out if a given address
> > points to user space instead of kernel space. However on
s/maining/remaining/ ?
Or maybe rather:
uaccess: remove CONFIG_SET_FS
because it is all gone now.
> With CONFIG_SET_FS gone, so drop all remaining references to
> set_fs()/get_fs(), mm_segment_t and uaccess_kernel().
And this sentence does not parse.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 07:20:11AM +, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> And we have also
> user_access_begin()/user_read_access_begin()/user_write_access_begin()
> which call access_ok() then do the real work. Could be made generic with
> call to some arch specific __user_access_begin() and
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 08:49:59AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Same here: architectures can already provide a __put_user_fn()
> and __get_user_fn(), to get the generic versions of the interface,
> but few architectures use that. You can actually get all the interfaces
> by just providing
IIUC it makes sense to drop this patch series from your for-next branch.
These changes have been superseded by generic approach posted by
Arnd Bergmann, see:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arch/CAHk-=whXYWoP6of7js=f4zov62on97mnfrsvrwhy75wogm6...@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
I tested patches by Arnd on
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:13 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> Christoph Hellwig and a few others spent a huge effort on removing
> set_fs() from most of the important architectures, but about half the
> other architectures were never completed even though most of them don't
>
Arnd Bergmann writes:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> There are no remaining callers of set_fs(), so CONFIG_SET_FS
> can be removed globally, along with the thread_info field and
> any references to it.
>
> This turns access_ok() into a cheaper check against TASK_SIZE_MAX.
>
> With CONFIG_SET_FS
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:19 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
> architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
> user_addr_max() value or they accept anything.
>
> Provide one definition that
23 matches
Mail list logo
