Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-24312-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:24:25 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
	Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
	John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	Matthew House <mattlloydhouse@gmail.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] add listmount(2) syscall
Message-ID: <ab4e88fa-af6a-49e9-a8bc-3cdc3a531aaf@roeck-us.net>
References: <20231025140205.3586473-1-mszeredi@redhat.com>
 <20231025140205.3586473-6-mszeredi@redhat.com>
 <75b87a85-7d2c-4078-91e3-024ea36cfb42@roeck-us.net>
 <CAHk-=wjdW-4s6Kpa4izJ2D=yPdCje6Ta=eQxxQG6e2SkP42vnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2f595f28-7fcd-4196-a0b1-6598781530b9@roeck-us.net>
 <CAHk-=wjh6Cypo8WC-McXgSzCaou3UXccxB+7PVeSuGR8AjCphg@mail.gmail.com>
 <77b38aa7-a8b1-4450-8c50-379f130dda16@roeck-us.net>
 <CAHk-=wgK81n4=pfKnhWfYxxtFBS_1UQDaeBGRRJ39qjVw-oyCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgK81n4=pfKnhWfYxxtFBS_1UQDaeBGRRJ39qjVw-oyCQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 07:40:32PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 15:57, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if something may be wrong with the definition and use of __m
> > for u64 accesses. The code below also fixes the build problem.
> 
> Ok, that looks like the right workaround.
> 

I think I'll go with the code below. It doesn't touch the MMU code
(which for some reason doesn't result in a build failure), and
it generates

! 5071 "fs/namespace.c" 1
        mov.l   r6,@r1
        mov.l   r7,@(4,r1)

which seems to be correct. It also matches the pattern used
for __put_user_asm(). Does that make sense ?

Thanks,
Guenter

---
diff --git a/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess_32.h b/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess_32.h
index 5d7ddc092afd..5ce46b2a95b6 100644
--- a/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess_32.h
+++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/uaccess_32.h
@@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ do {							\
 } while (0)
 #endif /* CONFIG_MMU */
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
 #if defined(CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN)
 #define __put_user_u64(val,addr,retval) \
 ({ \
@@ -221,6 +222,26 @@ __asm__ __volatile__( \
 	: "r" (val), "m" (__m(addr)), "i" (-EFAULT), "0" (retval) \
         : "memory"); })
 #endif
+#else
+#if defined(CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN)
+#define __put_user_u64(val,addr,retval) \
+({ \
+__asm__ __volatile__( \
+	"mov.l	%R0,%1\n\t" \
+	"mov.l	%S0,%T1\n\t" \
+	: /* no outputs */ \
+	: "r" (val), "m" (*(u64 *)(addr)) \
+	: "memory"); })
+#else
+({ \
+__asm__ __volatile__( \
+	"mov.l	%S0,%1\n\t" \
+	"mov.l	%R0,%T1\n\t" \
+	: /* no outputs */ \
+	: "r" (val), "m" (*(u64 *)(addr)) \
+	: "memory"); })
+#endif
+#endif /* CONFIG_MMU */
 
 extern void __put_user_unknown(void);