Groups > linux.kernel > #1619231

[RFC] why do we still keep __{get,put}_user_unaligned()?

Path	csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!news.unit0.net!news.panservice.it!diesel.cu.mi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	[RFC] why do we still keep __{get,put}_user_unaligned()?
Date	Sat, 08 Apr 2017 08:30:01 +0200
Message-ID	<ttS2J-1GI-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition	inline
User-Agent	Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID	<linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	30
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date	Sat, 8 Apr 2017 07:21:16 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID	<20170408062115.GZ29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
X-Original-Sender	linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref	csiph.com linux.kernel:1619231

Show key headers only | View raw

	Right now we have no users of __get_user_unaligned() outside of
arch/* and only 4 users of __put_user_unaligned() outside of arch/*.

	All 4 are in compat_sys_getdents64().  For storing
->d_ino and ->d_off in
struct linux_dirent64 {
        u64             d_ino;
        s64             d_off;
        unsigned short  d_reclen;
        unsigned char   d_type;
        char            d_name[0];
};
in case 32bit userland has weaker alignment requirements for that thing
and passes us a pointer that would've been aligned for 32bit, but not
for 64bit ABI.  Which architecture would that be, though?

	arm, mips, powerpc, sparc and s390 have that thing 64bit-aligned
in 32bit ABI (both of them in case of mips).  And since native getdents()
does *not* maintain more than that when padding an entry, we'd better have
put_user() of 64bit values work for any 64bit-aligned pointer.  I hadn't
checked actual cross-compile for tile, but judging by their compat.h they
are not suffering from that kind of braindamage either.

	x86 does, indeed, have weaker alignment in 32bit ABI.  It also
has __put_user_unaligned defined as __put_user.

	Is there any reason to keep those around?  As it is, the only places
that need those are m68k and arm binfmt-flat, and these boil down to "can this
CPU flavour do unaligned access?", with "use __get_user/__put_user" and
"use __copy_from_user/__copy_to_user" as outcomes.  Nothing more fancy...

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

Thread

[RFC] why do we still keep __{get,put}_user_unaligned()? Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2017-04-08 08:30 +0200
  [PATCH] remove compat_sys_getdents64() (was Re: [RFC] why do we  still keep __{get,put}_user_unaligned()?) Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2017-04-08 20:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] remove compat_sys_getdents64() (was Re: [RFC] why do we  still keep __{get,put}_user_unaligned()?) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-04-08 21:00 +0200

csiph-web