[v1,01/15] powerpc/uaccess: Remove __get_user_allowed() and unsafe_op_wrap()

Those two macros have only one user which is unsafe_get_user().

Put everything in one place and remove them.

Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes:

> Those two macros have only one user which is unsafe_get_user().
>
> Put everything in one place and remove them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
> index 78e2a3990eab..8cbf3e3874f1 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
> @@ -53,9 +53,6 @@ static inline bool __access_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
>  #define __put_user(x, ptr) \
>  	__put_user_nocheck((__typeof__(*(ptr)))(x), (ptr), sizeof(*(ptr)))
>  
> -#define __get_user_allowed(x, ptr) \
> -	__get_user_nocheck((x), (ptr), sizeof(*(ptr)), false)
> -
>  #define __get_user_inatomic(x, ptr) \
>  	__get_user_nosleep((x), (ptr), sizeof(*(ptr)))
>  #define __put_user_inatomic(x, ptr) \
> @@ -482,8 +479,11 @@ user_write_access_begin(const void __user *ptr, size_t len)
>  #define user_write_access_begin	user_write_access_begin
>  #define user_write_access_end		prevent_current_write_to_user
>  
> -#define unsafe_op_wrap(op, err) do { if (unlikely(op)) goto err; } while (0)
> -#define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) unsafe_op_wrap(__get_user_allowed(x, p), e)
> +#define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) do {					\
> +	if (unlikely(__get_user_nocheck((x), (p), sizeof(*(p)), false)))\
> +		goto e;							\
> +} while (0)
> +

This seems correct to me.

Checkpatch does have one check that is relevant:

CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'p' - possible side-effects?
#36: FILE: arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:482:
+#define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) do {					\
+	if (unlikely(__get_user_nocheck((x), (p), sizeof(*(p)), false)))\
+		goto e;							\
+} while (0)

Given that we are already creating a new block, should we do something
like this (completely untested):

#define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) do {					\
        __typeof__(p) __p = (p);
	if (unlikely(__get_user_nocheck((x), (__p), sizeof(*(__p)), false)))\
		goto e;							\
} while (0)

Kind regards,
Daniel

>  #define unsafe_put_user(x, p, e) \
>  	__unsafe_put_user_goto((__typeof__(*(p)))(x), (p), sizeof(*(p)), e)
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.0

On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 09:02:54AM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Checkpatch does have one check that is relevant:
> 
> CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'p' - possible side-effects?
> #36: FILE: arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:482:
> +#define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) do {					\
> +	if (unlikely(__get_user_nocheck((x), (p), sizeof(*(p)), false)))\
> +		goto e;							\
> +} while (0)

sizeof (of something other than a VLA) does not evaluate its operand.
The checkpatch warning is incorrect (well, it does say "possible" --
it just didn't find a possible problem here).

You can write
  bla = sizeof *p++;
and p is *not* incremented.


Segher

Le 01/03/2021 à 23:02, Daniel Axtens a écrit :
> 
> 
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes:
> 
>> Those two macros have only one user which is unsafe_get_user().
>>
>> Put everything in one place and remove them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
>> ---
>>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 10 +++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> index 78e2a3990eab..8cbf3e3874f1 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> @@ -53,9 +53,6 @@ static inline bool __access_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size)
>>   #define __put_user(x, ptr) \
>>   	__put_user_nocheck((__typeof__(*(ptr)))(x), (ptr), sizeof(*(ptr)))
>>   
>> -#define __get_user_allowed(x, ptr) \
>> -	__get_user_nocheck((x), (ptr), sizeof(*(ptr)), false)
>> -
>>   #define __get_user_inatomic(x, ptr) \
>>   	__get_user_nosleep((x), (ptr), sizeof(*(ptr)))
>>   #define __put_user_inatomic(x, ptr) \
>> @@ -482,8 +479,11 @@ user_write_access_begin(const void __user *ptr, size_t len)
>>   #define user_write_access_begin	user_write_access_begin
>>   #define user_write_access_end		prevent_current_write_to_user
>>   
>> -#define unsafe_op_wrap(op, err) do { if (unlikely(op)) goto err; } while (0)
>> -#define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) unsafe_op_wrap(__get_user_allowed(x, p), e)
>> +#define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) do {					\
>> +	if (unlikely(__get_user_nocheck((x), (p), sizeof(*(p)), false)))\
>> +		goto e;							\
>> +} while (0)
>> +
> 
> This seems correct to me.
> 
> Checkpatch does have one check that is relevant:
> 
> CHECK: Macro argument reuse 'p' - possible side-effects?
> #36: FILE: arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h:482:
> +#define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) do {					\
> +	if (unlikely(__get_user_nocheck((x), (p), sizeof(*(p)), false)))\
> +		goto e;							\
> +} while (0)
> 
> Given that we are already creating a new block, should we do something
> like this (completely untested):
> 
> #define unsafe_get_user(x, p, e) do {					\
>          __typeof__(p) __p = (p);
> 	if (unlikely(__get_user_nocheck((x), (__p), sizeof(*(__p)), false)))\
> 		goto e;							\
> } while (0)
> 

As mentioned by Segher, this is not needed, sizeof(p) doesn't evaluate (p) so (p) is only evaluated 
once in the macro, so no risk of side-effects with that.

Christophe