x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition

The way that access_ok() is defined on x86 is slightly different from
most other architectures, and a bit more complex.

The generic version tends to result in the best output on all
architectures, as it results in single comparison against a constant
limit for calls with a known size.

There are a few callers of __range_not_ok(), all of which use TASK_SIZE
as the limit rather than TASK_SIZE_MAX, but I could not see any reason
for picking this. Changing these to call __access_ok() instead uses the
default limit, but keeps the behavior otherwise.

x86 is the only architecture with a WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() checking
access_ok(), but it's probably best to leave that in place.

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
This commit is contained in:
Arnd Bergmann 2022-02-11 15:16:11 +01:00
parent 36903abedf
commit 1830a1d6a5
1 changed files with 3 additions and 22 deletions

View File

@ -16,33 +16,14 @@
* Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address.
* Returns 0 if the range is valid, nonzero otherwise.
*/
static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
static inline bool __access_ok(void __user *ptr, unsigned long size)
{
unsigned long limit = TASK_SIZE_MAX;
unsigned long addr = ptr;
/*
* If we have used "sizeof()" for the size,
* we know it won't overflow the limit (but
* it might overflow the 'addr', so it's
* important to subtract the size from the
* limit, not add it to the address).
*/
if (__builtin_constant_p(size))
return unlikely(addr > limit - size);
/* Arbitrary sizes? Be careful about overflow */
addr += size;
if (unlikely(addr < size))
return true;
return unlikely(addr > limit);
return (size <= limit) && (addr <= (limit - size));
}
#define __access_ok(addr, size) \
({ \
__chk_user_ptr(addr); \
!__chk_range_not_ok((unsigned long __force)(addr), size); \
})
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
static inline bool pagefault_disabled(void);
# define WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() \