Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1776351430.10902.1530585009519.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
References: <20180702223143.4663-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <CA+55aFzZYOatOtjrm7fD7878_SzCAmEoEu74n0+pgd7faH-sTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <825871008.10839.1530573419561.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <1959930320.10843.1530573742647.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <8B2E4CEB-3080-4602-8B62-774E400892EB@amacapital.net> <459661281.10865.1530580742205.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <858886246.10882.1530583291379.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <CA+55aFxWMjwx-4TGBHt0H6bh6FXC3NKMsjp=eKGw5cgA4wMBUA@mail.gmail.com> <1776351430.10902.1530585009519.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jul 2018 19:33:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrU0M1keBqeDyOsAEmgjY3p=JjD_rnt1Afnsdx2w3RE3hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate
 user inputs
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Chris Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>,
        rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> ----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:18 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:01 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
>> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> One thing to consider is how we will implement the load of that pointer
>>> on the kernel side.
>>
>> Use "get_user()". It works for 64-bit objects too, and it will be
>> atomic in the 32-bit sub-parts on a 32-bit architecture.
>
> Is it really ? Last time we had this discussion, not all architectures
> guaranteed that reading a 64-bit integer would happen in two atomic
> 32-bit sub-parts. This was the main motivation for the LINUX_FIELD_u32_u64()
> macro as it stands today (rather than using a union).
>

If you're nervous, you could do this by open-coding:

#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
get_user(...)
#else
get_user(...);
get_user(...);
#endif

No need to make the header more complicated just for this.