[PATCH v2] arm64/signal: Silence sparse warning storing GCSPR_EL0
Catalin Marinas
catalin.marinas at arm.com
Fri Dec 13 08:26:40 PST 2024
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 01:00:35AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> index 14ac6fdb872b9672e4b16a097f1b577aae8dec50..08d51fabdb9d47c848f14c9b25d6be04f109c2ee 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_GCS
> #define GCS_SIGNAL_CAP(addr) (((unsigned long)addr) & GCS_CAP_ADDR_MASK)
>
> -static bool gcs_signal_cap_valid(u64 addr, u64 val)
> +static bool gcs_signal_cap_valid(unsigned long __user *addr, u64 val)
> {
> return val == GCS_SIGNAL_CAP(addr);
> }
Another personal preference - addresses should be (unsigned long),
pointer to be accessed (... __user *). But we could even scrap this
function, there's a single caller to a one-line function.
> @@ -1094,15 +1094,15 @@ static int gcs_restore_signal(void)
> /*
> * Check that the cap is the actual GCS before replacing it.
> */
> - if (!gcs_signal_cap_valid((u64)gcspr_el0, cap))
> + if (!gcs_signal_cap_valid(gcspr_el0, cap))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* Invalidate the token to prevent reuse */
> - put_user_gcs(0, (__user void*)gcspr_el0, &ret);
> + put_user_gcs(0, gcspr_el0, &ret);
> if (ret != 0)
> return -EFAULT;
>
> - write_sysreg_s(gcspr_el0 + 1, SYS_GCSPR_EL0);
> + write_sysreg_s((__force u64)(gcspr_el0 + 1), SYS_GCSPR_EL0);
>
> return 0;
> }
Looking through the code, do we have a similar problem in
gcs_signal_entry()? Or do we rely on sparse ignoring (unsigned long)
casts?
Whichever way we go, I think we should have consistency between these
two functions.
--
Catalin
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list