[PATCH] arm64/signal: Silence spurious sparse warning storing GCSPR_EL0
Mark Rutland
mark.rutland at arm.com
Tue Dec 10 08:35:57 PST 2024
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 03:44:29PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 02:48:48PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 12:42:53AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > We are seeing a false postive sparse warning in gcs_restore_signal()
> > >
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c:1054:9: sparse: sparse: cast removes address space '__user' of expression
>
> > This isn't a false positive; this is a cross-address space cast that
> > sparse is accurately warning about. That might be *benign*, but the tool
> > is doing exactly what it is supposed to.
>
> The spuriousness is arguable, from my point of view it's spurious in
> that we don't have the type of the system register we're writing to.
All that I'm asking for here is a trivial rewording; make the title say
something like:
arm64/signal: Avoid sparse warning when manipulating GCSPR_EL0
... and in the commit message, say something like:
Sparse complains about the manipulation of the GCSPR_EL0 value in
gcs_restore_signal(), because we cast to/from the __user address space
without a __force cast. Silence this warning by ${DOING_THING}.
... which clearly explains what's actually going wrong, rather than
making spurious complaints about the tool that may mislead a reader of
the commit message.
> > > + write_sysreg_s((unsigned long)(gcspr_el0 + 1), SYS_GCSPR_EL0);
>
> > Only one line here wants a __user pointer, so wouldn't it be simpler to
> > pass 'gcspr_el0' as an integer type, and cast it at the point it's used
> > as an actual pointer, rather than the other way around?
>
> > Then you could also simplify gcs_restore_signal(), etc.
>
> I find it both safer and clearer to keep values which are userspace
> pointers as userspace pointers rather than working with them as
> integers, using integers just sets off alarm bells.
Having casts strewn throughout the code sets off more alarm bells for
me.
> > Similarly in map_shadow_stack(), it'd be simpler to treat cap_ptr as an
> > integer type.
>
> With map_shadow_stack() it's a bit of an issue with letting users
> specify a size but yeah, we could do better there.
I don't follow. The only place where size interacts with cap_ptr is when
we initialize cap_ptr, and there we're adding size to an integer type:
cap_ptr = (unsigned long __user *)(addr + size -
(cap_offset * sizeof(unsigned long)));
I was suggesting something along the lines of the diff below.
Mark.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/gcs.c b/arch/arm64/mm/gcs.c
index 5c46ec527b1cd..096add5f2ddb2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/gcs.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/gcs.c
@@ -71,10 +71,7 @@ unsigned long gcs_alloc_thread_stack(struct task_struct *tsk,
SYSCALL_DEFINE3(map_shadow_stack, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, size, unsigned int, flags)
{
unsigned long alloc_size;
- unsigned long __user *cap_ptr;
- unsigned long cap_val;
int ret = 0;
- int cap_offset;
if (!system_supports_gcs())
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
@@ -106,17 +103,16 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(map_shadow_stack, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, size, unsi
* can be switched to.
*/
if (flags & SHADOW_STACK_SET_TOKEN) {
+ unsigned long cap_addr = addr + size - sizeof(unsigned long);
+ unsigned long cap_val;
+
/* Leave an extra empty frame as a top of stack marker? */
if (flags & SHADOW_STACK_SET_MARKER)
- cap_offset = 2;
- else
- cap_offset = 1;
+ cap_addr -= sizeof(unsigned long)
- cap_ptr = (unsigned long __user *)(addr + size -
- (cap_offset * sizeof(unsigned long)));
- cap_val = GCS_CAP(cap_ptr);
+ cap_val = GCS_CAP(cap_addr);
- put_user_gcs(cap_val, cap_ptr, &ret);
+ put_user_gcs(cap_val, (unsigned long __user *)cap_addr, &ret);
if (ret != 0) {
vm_munmap(addr, size);
return -EFAULT;
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list