On x86-64, copy_[to|from]_user() rely on assembly routines that
never call might_fault(), making us missing various lockdep
checks.
This doesn't apply to __copy_from,to_user() that explicitly
handle these calls, neither is it a problem in x86-32 where
copy_to,from_user() rely on the "__" prefixed versions that
also call might_fault().
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <1258382538-30979-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
[ v2: fix module export ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This v2.6.26 commit:
ad2fc2c: x86: fix copy_user on x86
rendered __copy_from_user_inatomic() identical to
copy_user_generic(), yet didn't make the former just call the
latter from an inline function.
Furthermore, this v2.6.19 commit:
b885808: [PATCH] Add proper sparse __user casts to __copy_to_user_inatomic
converted the return type of __copy_to_user_inatomic() from
unsigned long to int, but didn't do the same to
__copy_from_user_inatomic().
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: <v.mayatskih@gmail.com>
LKML-Reference: <4AFD5778020000780001F8F4@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
gcc (4.x) supports the __builtin_object_size() builtin, which
reports the size of an object that a pointer point to, when known
at compile time. If the buffer size is not known at compile time, a
constant -1 is returned.
This patch uses this feature to add a sanity check to
copy_from_user(); if the target buffer is known to be smaller than
the copy size, the copy is aborted and a WARNing is emitted in
memory debug mode.
These extra checks compile away when the object size is not known,
or if both the buffer size and the copy length are constants.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
LKML-Reference: <20090926143301.2c396b94@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
While examining symbol generation in perf_counter tools, I
noticed that copy_to_user() had no size in vmlinux's symtab.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
Acked-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
LKML-Reference: <1246512440.13293.3.camel@marge.simson.net>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
New ALIGN_DESTINATION macro has sad typo: r8d register was used instead
of ecx in fixup section. This can be considered as a regression.
Register ecx was also wrongly loaded with value in r8d in
copy_user_nocache routine.
Signed-off-by: Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Gas 2.15 complains about 32-bit registers being used in lea.
AS arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.o
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.S: Assembler messages:
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.S:188: Error: `(%edx,%ecx,8)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.S:257: Error: `(%edx,%ecx,8)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
AS arch/x86/lib/copy_user_nocache_64.o
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_nocache_64.S: Assembler messages:
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_nocache_64.S:107: Error: `(%edx,%ecx,8)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
Cc: Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This is for consistency with i386.
Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Most users by far do not care about the exact return value (they only
really care about whether the copy succeeded in its entirety or not),
but a few special core routines actually care deeply about exactly how
many bytes were copied from user space.
And the unrolled versions of the x86-64 user copy routines would
sometimes report that it had copied more bytes than it actually had.
Very few uses actually have partial copies to begin with, but to make
this bug even harder to trigger, most x86 CPU's use the "rep string"
instructions for normal user copies, and that version didn't have this
issue.
To make it even harder to hit, the one user of this that really cared
about the return value (and used the uncached version of the copy that
doesn't use the "rep string" instructions) was the generic write
routine, which pre-populated its source, once more hiding the problem by
avoiding the exception case that triggers the bug.
In other words, very special thanks to Bron Gondwana who not only
triggered this, but created a test-program to show it, and bisected the
behavior down to commit 08291429cf ("mm:
fix pagecache write deadlocks") which changed the access pattern just
enough that you can now trigger it with 'writev()' with multiple
iovec's.
That commit itself was not the cause of the bug, it just allowed all the
stars to align just right that you could trigger the problem.
[ Side note: this is just the minimal fix to make the copy routines
(with __copy_from_user_inatomic_nocache as the particular version that
was involved in showing this) have the right return values.
We really should improve on the exceptional case further - to make the
copy do a byte-accurate copy up to the exact page limit that causes it
to fail. As it is, the callers have to do extra work to handle the
limit case gracefully. ]
Reported-by: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
(which didn't have this problem), and since
most users that do the carethis was very hard to trigger, but
