[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: polish __{get,put}_user_{,no}check()
On 02/05/17 14:23, Jan Beulich wrote: > The primary purpose is correcting a latent bug in __get_user_check() > (the macro has no active user at present): The access_ok() check should > be before the actual access, or else any PV guest could initiate MMIO > reads with side effects. > > Clean up all four macros at once: > - all arguments evaluated exactly once > - build the "check" flavor using the "nocheck" ones, instead of open > coding them > - "int" is wide enough for error codes > - name local variables without using underscores as prefixes > - avoid pointless parentheses > - add blanks after commas separating parameters or arguments > - consistently use tabs for indentation Could we use spaces? This file is already half and half style, and these bits of code are a long way removed from their Linux heritage. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > --- > This corrects the code which would have resulted in an XSA on Xen 4.2 > and older, if those were still security supported. For that reason I at > least want to explore whether this is a change we want to take for 4.9. > > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/uaccess.h > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/uaccess.h > @@ -104,37 +104,35 @@ extern void __put_user_bad(void); > #define __put_user(x,ptr) \ > __put_user_nocheck((__typeof__(*(ptr)))(x),(ptr),sizeof(*(ptr))) > > -#define __put_user_nocheck(x,ptr,size) \ > -({ \ > - long __pu_err; \ > - __put_user_size((x),(ptr),(size),__pu_err,-EFAULT); \ > - __pu_err; \ > +#define __put_user_nocheck(x, ptr, size) \ > +({ \ > + int err_; \ > + __put_user_size(x, ptr, size, err_, -EFAULT); \ > + err_; \ > }) > > -#define __put_user_check(x,ptr,size) \ > +#define __put_user_check(x, ptr, size) > \ > ({ \ > - long __pu_err = -EFAULT; \ > - __typeof__(*(ptr)) __user *__pu_addr = (ptr); \ > - if (access_ok(__pu_addr,size)) \ > - __put_user_size((x),__pu_addr,(size),__pu_err,-EFAULT); \ > - __pu_err; \ > + __typeof__(*(ptr)) __user *ptr_ = (ptr); \ > + __typeof__(size) size_ = (size); \ > + access_ok(ptr_, size_) ? __put_user_nocheck(x, ptr_, size_) \ > + : -EFAULT; \ > }) Can you clobber the trailing whitespace on this line, like you did with __get_user_check() ? Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> > > -#define __get_user_nocheck(x,ptr,size) \ > -({ \ > - long __gu_err; \ > - __get_user_size((x),(ptr),(size),__gu_err,-EFAULT); \ > - __gu_err; \ > +#define __get_user_nocheck(x, ptr, size) \ > +({ \ > + int err_; \ > + __get_user_size(x, ptr, size, err_, -EFAULT); \ > + err_; \ > }) > > -#define __get_user_check(x,ptr,size) \ > -({ \ > - long __gu_err; \ > - __typeof__(*(ptr)) __user *__gu_addr = (ptr); \ > - __get_user_size((x),__gu_addr,(size),__gu_err,-EFAULT); \ > - if (!access_ok(__gu_addr,size)) __gu_err = -EFAULT; \ > - __gu_err; \ > -}) > +#define __get_user_check(x, ptr, size) > \ > +({ \ > + __typeof__(*(ptr)) __user *ptr_ = (ptr); \ > + __typeof__(size) size_ = (size); \ > + access_ok(ptr_, size_) ? __get_user_nocheck(x, ptr_, size_) \ > + : -EFAULT; \ > +}) > > struct __large_struct { unsigned long buf[100]; }; > #define __m(x) (*(const struct __large_struct *)(x)) > > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |