Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1527357

[RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context

Show all headers | View raw

I recently encountered wreckage because access_ok() was used where it
should not be, add an explicit WARN when access_ok() is used wrongly.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h |  7 +++++--
 include/linux/preempt.h        | 21 +++++++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index faf3687f1035..b139c46ba122 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -88,8 +88,11 @@ static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, un
  * checks that the pointer is in the user space range - after calling
  * this function, memory access functions may still return -EFAULT.
  */
-#define access_ok(type, addr, size) \
-	likely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max()))
+#define access_ok(type, addr, size)					\
+({									\
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_task());					\
+	likely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max()));		\
+})
 
 /*
  * These are the main single-value transfer routines.  They automatically
diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
index 75e4e30677f1..7eeceac52dea 100644
--- a/include/linux/preempt.h
+++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
@@ -65,19 +65,24 @@
 
 /*
  * Are we doing bottom half or hardware interrupt processing?
- * Are we in a softirq context? Interrupt context?
- * in_softirq - Are we currently processing softirq or have bh disabled?
- * in_serving_softirq - Are we currently processing softirq?
+ *
+ * in_irq()       - We're in (hard) IRQ context
+ * in_softirq()   - We have BH disabled, or are processing softirqs
+ * in_interrupt() - We're in NMI,IRQ,SoftIRQ context or have BH disabled
+ * in_serving_softirq() - We're in softirq context
+ * in_nmi()       - We're in NMI context
+ * in_task()	  - We're in task context
+ *
+ * Note: due to the BH disabled confusion: in_softirq(),in_interrupt() really
+ *       should not be used in new code.
  */
 #define in_irq()		(hardirq_count())
 #define in_softirq()		(softirq_count())
 #define in_interrupt()		(irq_count())
 #define in_serving_softirq()	(softirq_count() & SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)
-
-/*
- * Are we in NMI context?
- */
-#define in_nmi()	(preempt_count() & NMI_MASK)
+#define in_nmi()		(preempt_count() & NMI_MASK)
+#define in_task()		(!(preempt_count() & \
+				   (NMI_MASK | HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)))
 
 /*
  * The preempt_count offset after preempt_disable();

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-22 11:00 +0100
  Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-11-22 18:30 +0100
    Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-22 20:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-11-22 20:50 +0100

csiph-web