[PATCH v8 7/7] powerpc: add machine check safe copy_to_user

[Santosh Sivaraj]

Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> writes:

> Santosh Sivaraj <santosh at fossix.org> writes:
>> Use  memcpy_mcsafe() implementation to define copy_to_user_mcsafe()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Sivaraj <santosh at fossix.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/powerpc/Kconfig               |  1 +
>>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
>> index 77f6ebf97113..4316e36095a2 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
>> @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ config PPC
>>  	select ARCH_HAS_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX	if ((PPC_BOOK3S_64 || PPC32) && !RELOCATABLE && !HIBERNATION)
>>  	select ARCH_HAS_TICK_BROADCAST		if GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST
>>  	select ARCH_HAS_UACCESS_FLUSHCACHE	if PPC64
>> +	select ARCH_HAS_UACCESS_MCSAFE		if PPC64
>>  	select ARCH_HAS_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL
>>  	select ARCH_HAVE_NMI_SAFE_CMPXCHG
>>  	select ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> index 8b03eb44e876..15002b51ff18 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> @@ -387,6 +387,20 @@ static inline unsigned long raw_copy_to_user(void __user *to,
>>  	return ret;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static __always_inline unsigned long __must_check
>> +copy_to_user_mcsafe(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n)
>> +{
>> +	if (likely(check_copy_size(from, n, true))) {
>> +		if (access_ok(to, n)) {
>> +			allow_write_to_user(to, n);
>> +			n = memcpy_mcsafe((void *)to, from, n);
>> +			prevent_write_to_user(to, n);
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return n;
>> +}
>
> This looks OK to me.
>
> It would be nice though if copy_to_user_mcsafe() followed the pattern of
> the other copy_to_user() etc. routines where the arch code is only
> responsible for the actual arch details, and all the checks are done in
> the generic code. That would be a good cleanup to do after this has gone
> in, as the 2nd implementation of the API.

Sure, will do that.

>
> cheers