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
References: <20190307091514.2489338-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20190307091514.2489338-2-arnd@arndb.de>
 <CAKwvOdk=9j2HvtWOpdOEw9sm0Nh2oU3c1c6+hJJ5WMweAM=4EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190307234850.nsbpkfcit3lnmytu@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <CAKv+Gu9VM2Vs3Q8+bPLsnt08dOmba6j54gnhiHkk=AHRzG8tVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190308095308.hjjrzdp4fzbbtnnv@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <CAKv+Gu_szWgw-KJASLYGJ6hJXh5K8WxnUn+UQkm7jUup=rqG6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190308103429.ycasmpt6tcpsoqps@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <CAKv+Gu_9=G3U6Yaw8fLfTP3QT38WdwrFaC-BqLTCr2NihWA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190308105835.tovswk5rwxusmxdu@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <CAKv+Gu-Od+hBosThTWFooz9FMKnu3g0oNh_2hmidetbB-_YyjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1ECw_g1AqsVavD8hhVEGqNk6Kcx_U0L=0d29eu561NhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu8qgsnPV=uWR2jkJ5bsYihekkEvWNuw4whLdLrbBa7gnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0QCgLbXpztUQXAhWLp=ArJUqmtcuXNZUeXZBH+N1QeaA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKv+Gu__jgnm00ou+3FsqRBZWeDFy5Qi+1eiXeMKqc+hVSXomg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu__jgnm00ou+3FsqRBZWeDFy5Qi+1eiXeMKqc+hVSXomg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 21:58:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2Rr1_+m245cBhS6EkKm9-ZgfVDNB0x-=RNJ3KrGEWBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: futex: make futex_detect_cmpxchg more reliable
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:36 PM Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 17:30, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:36 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> > <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 15:34, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:56 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> > > > <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 11:58, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 11:45:21AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My first attempt (before finding the original patch from Mikael Pettersson)
> > > > was to change the probe to pass '1' as the value instead of '0', that
> > > > worked fine.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which probe is that?
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> > index c3b73b0311bc..19615ad3c4f7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/futex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> > @@ -3864,7 +3864,7 @@ static void __init futex_detect_cmpxchg(void)
> >          * implementation, the non-functional ones will return
> >          * -ENOSYS.
> >          */
> > -       if (cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, NULL, 0, 0) == -EFAULT)
> > +       if (cmpxchg_futex_value_locked(&curval, NULL, 1, 1) == -EFAULT)
> >                 futex_cmpxchg_enabled = 1;
> >  #endif
> >  }
> >
>
> Ah ok.
>
> That explains a lot.
>
> Can't we just return -EFAULT if uaddr is NULL? Or does that defeat this check?

I think that would work here, it would just create a tiny overhead
for each call to futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic().

Semi-related side note:
After I looked at access_ok() for a bit too long, I tried replacing it with

#define access_ok(addr, size) \
       (((u64)(uintptr_t)addr + (u64)(size_t)size) >=
current_thread_info()->addr_limit)

which interestingly seemed to improve the output with clang (it lets it
combine multiple access_ok() checks and schedule the instructions better,
compared to our inline asm implementation), but it unfortunately creates
horrible code with gcc.

      Arnd