2019-02-25 19:13:17

by Borislav Petkov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro

From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>

This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery.

No functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <[email protected]>
Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 780f2b42c8ef..e2ffedd51fd8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -35,10 +35,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
}

#define segment_eq(a, b) ((a).seg == (b).seg)
-
#define user_addr_max() (current->thread.addr_limit.seg)
-#define __addr_ok(addr) \
- ((unsigned long __force)(addr) < user_addr_max())

/*
* Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address.
--
2.21.0



2019-02-25 19:21:38

by Linus Torvalds

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:11 AM Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery.

Heh.

You should probably have researched _when_ it became unused.

That seems to have happened in commit 5723aa993d83 ("x86: use the new
generic strnlen_user() function") which removed the single user from
the x86-32 version of strnlen_user(), which used to have

unsigned long mask = -__addr_ok(s);

in it.

Way back in 2012.

Ack.

Linus

2019-02-25 19:42:48

by Borislav Petkov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:11 AM Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery.
>
> Heh.
>
> You should probably have researched _when_ it became unused.
>
> That seems to have happened in commit 5723aa993d83 ("x86: use the new
> generic strnlen_user() function") which removed the single user from
> the x86-32 version of strnlen_user(), which used to have
>
> unsigned long mask = -__addr_ok(s);

Yap, found it. I still have

$ git log -p -G__addr_ok --pickaxe-all

in one of the shells' history here.

I'll add that to the commit message.

Thx.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

2019-02-25 21:10:18

by Joe Perches

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro

On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 20:42 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:11 AM Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery.
> >
> > Heh.
> >
> > You should probably have researched _when_ it became unused.
> >
> > That seems to have happened in commit 5723aa993d83 ("x86: use the new
> > generic strnlen_user() function") which removed the single user from
> > the x86-32 version of strnlen_user(), which used to have
> >
> > unsigned long mask = -__addr_ok(s);
>
> Yap, found it. I still have
>
> $ git log -p -G__addr_ok --pickaxe-all
>
> in one of the shells' history here.
>
> I'll add that to the commit message.
>
> Thx.

Looks like it's not used in several arches

$ git grep -w __addr_ok
arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) ((void)(addr), 1)
arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) (access_ok(addr, 0))
arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) ((unsigned long) addr < get_fs())
arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) \
arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h: __ao_end >= __ao_a && __addr_ok(__ao_end); })
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) \



Subject: [tip:x86/cleanups] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro

Commit-ID: 2e7614c0736de93c8796bb2d58debb8871a59db8
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/2e7614c0736de93c8796bb2d58debb8871a59db8
Author: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 20:08:27 +0100
Committer: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
CommitDate: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:13:05 +0100

x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro

This was caught while staring at the whole {set,get}_fs() machinery.

It's last user, the 32-bit version of strnlen_user() went away with

5723aa993d83 ("x86: use the new generic strnlen_user() function")

so drop it.

No functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <[email protected]>
Cc: "Tobin C. Harding" <[email protected]>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
---
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index a77445d1b034..ec8d36f04786 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -35,10 +35,7 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
}

#define segment_eq(a, b) ((a).seg == (b).seg)
-
#define user_addr_max() (current->thread.addr_limit.seg)
-#define __addr_ok(addr) \
- ((unsigned long __force)(addr) < user_addr_max())

/*
* Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address.

2019-03-04 06:47:38

by Christian Kujau

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, Joe Perches wrote:
> Looks like it's not used in several arches
>
> $ git grep -w __addr_ok
> arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) ((void)(addr), 1)
> arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) (access_ok(addr, 0))
> arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) ((unsigned long) addr < get_fs())
> arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) \
> arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h: __ao_end >= __ao_a && __addr_ok(__ao_end); })
> arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:#define __addr_ok(addr) \

If so, would simly removing it do the trick or is there more magic
involved? I don't have that many cross-compilers though and it's not even
build-tested:


commit f899653c64cce05fde426d0298cd67670f8ab8e2
Author: Christian Kujau <[email protected]>
Date: Sun Mar 3 22:43:09 2019 -0800

Remove unused __addr_ok() macro.

arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h | 1 -
arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h | 2 --
arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 3 ---
arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h | 5 +----
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 2 --
5 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-)

Signed-off-by: Christian Kujau <[email protected]>

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 42aa4a22803c..16411c76076d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -266,7 +266,6 @@ extern int __put_user_8(void *, unsigned long long);
#define USER_DS KERNEL_DS

#define segment_eq(a, b) (1)
-#define __addr_ok(addr) ((void)(addr), 1)
#define __range_ok(addr, size) ((void)(addr), 0)
#define get_fs() (KERNEL_DS)

diff --git a/arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h
index eaa1c3403a42..c02b243fecaa 100644
--- a/arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/csky/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -24,8 +24,6 @@ static inline int access_ok(const void *addr, unsigned long size)
((unsigned long)(addr + size) < limit));
}

-#define __addr_ok(addr) (access_ok(addr, 0))
-
extern int __put_user_bad(void);

/*
diff --git a/arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h
index a44682c8adc3..9198371e30c2 100644
--- a/arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/openrisc/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -55,9 +55,6 @@
*/
#define __range_ok(addr, size) (size <= get_fs() && addr <= (get_fs()-size))

-/* Ensure that addr is below task's addr_limit */
-#define __addr_ok(addr) ((unsigned long) addr < get_fs())
-
#define access_ok(addr, size) \
({ \
unsigned long __ao_addr = (unsigned long)(addr); \
diff --git a/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 5fe751ad7582..b41f6a011474 100644
--- a/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -5,9 +5,6 @@
#include <asm/segment.h>
#include <asm/extable.h>

-#define __addr_ok(addr) \
- ((unsigned long __force)(addr) < current_thread_info()->addr_limit.seg)
-
/*
* __access_ok: Check if address with size is OK or not.
*
@@ -19,7 +16,7 @@
#define __access_ok(addr, size) ({ \
unsigned long __ao_a = (addr), __ao_b = (size); \
unsigned long __ao_end = __ao_a + __ao_b - !!__ao_b; \
- __ao_end >= __ao_a && __addr_ok(__ao_end); })
+ __ao_end >= __ao_a; })

#define access_ok(addr, size) \
(__chk_user_ptr(addr), \
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index c1334aaaa78d..d630978738dc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -37,8 +37,6 @@ static inline void set_fs(mm_segment_t fs)
#define segment_eq(a, b) ((a).seg == (b).seg)

#define user_addr_max() (current->thread.addr_limit.seg)
-#define __addr_ok(addr) \
- ((unsigned long __force)(addr) < user_addr_max())

/*
* Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address.


--
BOFH excuse #123:

user to computer ratio too high.

2019-03-27 13:16:43

by Borislav Petkov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Remove unused __addr_ok() macro

On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 10:47:00PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote:
> If so, would simly removing it do the trick or is there more magic
> involved? I don't have that many cross-compilers though and it's not even
> build-tested:

There are cross compilers here:

https://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

which you can use.

And perhaps splitting that patch per architecture and letting arch
maintainers apply each, would be easier. I think.

Thx.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.