Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Move CPU feature test out of uaccess region

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On May 29, 2019 7:15:00 AM PDT, Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>This patch is a pre-requisite for enabling KASAN bitops
>instrumentation:
>moves boot_cpu_has feature test out of the uaccess region, as
>boot_cpu_has uses test_bit. With instrumentation, the KASAN check would
>otherwise be flagged by objtool.
>
>This approach is preferred over adding the explicit kasan_check_*
>functions to the uaccess whitelist of objtool, as the case here appears
>to be the only one.
>
>Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
>---
>v1:
>* This patch replaces patch: 'tools/objtool: add kasan_check_* to
>  uaccess whitelist'
>---
> arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c
>index 629d1ee05599..12264e3c9c43 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/ia32/ia32_signal.c
>@@ -333,6 +333,7 @@ int ia32_setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct ksignal
>*ksig,
> 	void __user *restorer;
> 	int err = 0;
> 	void __user *fpstate = NULL;
>+	bool has_xsave;
> 
> 	/* __copy_to_user optimizes that into a single 8 byte store */
> 	static const struct {
>@@ -352,13 +353,19 @@ int ia32_setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct ksignal
>*ksig,
> 	if (!access_ok(frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> 		return -EFAULT;
> 
>+	/*
>+	 * Move non-uaccess accesses out of uaccess region if not strictly
>+	 * required; this also helps avoid objtool flagging these accesses
>with
>+	 * instrumentation enabled.
>+	 */
>+	has_xsave = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVE);
> 	put_user_try {
> 		put_user_ex(sig, &frame->sig);
> 		put_user_ex(ptr_to_compat(&frame->info), &frame->pinfo);
> 		put_user_ex(ptr_to_compat(&frame->uc), &frame->puc);
> 
> 		/* Create the ucontext.  */
>-		if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVE))
>+		if (has_xsave)
> 			put_user_ex(UC_FP_XSTATE, &frame->uc.uc_flags);
> 		else
> 			put_user_ex(0, &frame->uc.uc_flags);

This was meant to use static_cpu_has(). Why did that get dropped?
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux