Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 26 6月, 2009 1 次提交
    • P
      x86, delay: tsc based udelay should have rdtsc_barrier · e888d7fa
      由 Pallipadi, Venkatesh 提交于 
      delay_tsc needs rdtsc_barrier to provide proper delay.

Output from a test driver using hpet to cross check delay
provided by udelay().

Before:
[   86.794363] Expected delay 5us actual 4679ns
[   87.154362] Expected delay 5us actual 698ns
[   87.514162] Expected delay 5us actual 4539ns
[   88.653716] Expected delay 5us actual 4539ns
[   94.664106] Expected delay 10us actual 9638ns
[   95.049351] Expected delay 10us actual 10126ns
[   95.416110] Expected delay 10us actual 9568ns
[   95.799216] Expected delay 10us actual 9638ns
[  103.624104] Expected delay 10us actual 9707ns
[  104.020619] Expected delay 10us actual 768ns
[  104.419951] Expected delay 10us actual 9707ns

After:
[   50.983320] Expected delay 5us actual 5587ns
[   51.261807] Expected delay 5us actual 5587ns
[   51.565715] Expected delay 5us actual 5657ns
[   51.861171] Expected delay 5us actual 5587ns
[   52.164704] Expected delay 5us actual 5726ns
[   52.487457] Expected delay 5us actual 5657ns
[   52.789338] Expected delay 5us actual 5726ns
[   57.119680] Expected delay 10us actual 10755ns
[   57.893997] Expected delay 10us actual 10615ns
[   58.261287] Expected delay 10us actual 10755ns
[   58.620505] Expected delay 10us actual 10825ns
[   58.941035] Expected delay 10us actual 10755ns
[   59.320903] Expected delay 10us actual 10615ns
[   61.306311] Expected delay 10us actual 10755ns
[   61.520542] Expected delay 10us actual 10615ns
Signed-off-by: NVenkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      e888d7fa
  3. 21 6月, 2009 1 次提交
    • L
      x86, 64-bit: Clean up user address masking · 9063c61f
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      The discussion about using "access_ok()" in get_user_pages_fast() (see
commit 7f818906: "x86: don't use
'access_ok()' as a range check in get_user_pages_fast()" for details and
end result), made us notice that x86-64 was really being very sloppy
about virtual address checking.

So be way more careful and straightforward about masking x86-64 virtual
addresses:

 - All the VIRTUAL_MASK* variants now cover half of the address
   space, it's not like we can use the full mask on a signed
   integer, and the larger mask just invites mistakes when
   applying it to either half of the 48-bit address space.

 - /proc/kcore's kc_offset_to_vaddr() becomes a lot more
   obvious when it transforms a file offset into a
   (kernel-half) virtual address.

 - Unify/simplify the 32-bit and 64-bit USER_DS definition to
   be based on TASK_SIZE_MAX.

This cleanup and more careful/obvious user virtual address checking also
uncovered a buglet in the x86-64 implementation of strnlen_user(): it
would do an "access_ok()" check on the whole potential area, even if the
string itself was much shorter, and thus return an error even for valid
strings. Our sloppy checking had hidden this.

So this fixes 'strnlen_user()' to do this properly, the same way we
already handled user strings in 'strncpy_from_user()'.  Namely by just
checking the first byte, and then relying on fault handling for the
rest.  That always works, since we impose a guard page that cannot be
mapped at the end of the user space address space (and even if we
didn't, we'd have the address space hole).
Acked-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      9063c61f
  5. 10 6月, 2009 2 次提交
  7. 12 3月, 2009 2 次提交
  9. 14 2月, 2009 1 次提交
  11. 21 1月, 2009 1 次提交
    • A
      x86: use early clobbers in usercopy*.c · e0a96129
      由 Andi Kleen 提交于 
      Impact: fix rare (but currently harmless) miscompile with certain configs and gcc versions

Hugh Dickins noticed that strncpy_from_user() was miscompiled
in some circumstances with gcc 4.3.

Thanks to Hugh's excellent analysis it was easy to track down.

Hugh writes:

> Try building an x86_64 defconfig 2.6.29-rc1 kernel tree,
> except not quite defconfig, switch CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
> and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY off (because it expands a
> might_fault() there, which hides the issue): using a
> gcc 4.3.2 (I've checked both openSUSE 11.1 and Fedora 10).
>
> It generates the following:
>
> 0000000000000000 <__strncpy_from_user>:
>    0:   48 89 d1                mov    %rdx,%rcx
>    3:   48 85 c9                test   %rcx,%rcx
>    6:   74 0e                   je     16 <__strncpy_from_user+0x16>
>    8:   ac                      lods   %ds:(%rsi),%al
>    9:   aa                      stos   %al,%es:(%rdi)
>    a:   84 c0                   test   %al,%al
>    c:   74 05                   je     13 <__strncpy_from_user+0x13>
>    e:   48 ff c9                dec    %rcx
>   11:   75 f5                   jne    8 <__strncpy_from_user+0x8>
>   13:   48 29 c9                sub    %rcx,%rcx
>   16:   48 89 c8                mov    %rcx,%rax
>   19:   c3                      retq
>
> Observe that "sub %rcx,%rcx; mov %rcx,%rax", whereas gcc 4.2.1
> (and many other configs) say "sub %rcx,%rdx; mov %rdx,%rax".
> Isn't it returning 0 when it ought to be returning strlen?

The asm constraints for the strncpy_from_user() result were missing an
early clobber, which tells gcc that the last output arguments
are written before all input arguments are read.

Also add more early clobbers in the rest of the file and fix 32-bit
usercopy.c in the same way.
Signed-off-by: NAndi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
[ since this API is rarely used and no in-kernel user relies on a 'len'
  return value (they only rely on negative return values) this miscompile
  was never noticed in the field. But it's worth fixing it nevertheless. ]
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      e0a96129
  13. 12 9月, 2008 1 次提交
  15. 11 9月, 2008 1 次提交
  17. 10 9月, 2008 1 次提交
    • N
      x86: some lock annotations for user copy paths · c10d38dd
      由 Nick Piggin 提交于 
      copy_to/from_user and all its variants (except the atomic ones) can take a
page fault and perform non-trivial work like taking mmap_sem and entering
the filesyste/pagecache.

Unfortunately, this often escapes lockdep because a common pattern is to
use it to read in some arguments just set up from userspace, or write data
back to a hot buffer. In those cases, it will be unlikely for page reclaim
to get a window in to cause copy_*_user to fault.

With the new might_lock primitives, add some annotations to x86. I don't
know if I caught all possible faulting points (it's a bit of a maze, and I
didn't really look at 32-bit). But this is a starting point.

Boots and runs OK so far.
Signed-off-by: NNick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Acked-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      c10d38dd
  19. 04 9月, 2008 1 次提交
  21. 26 8月, 2008 2 次提交
  23. 18 8月, 2008 1 次提交
  25. 15 8月, 2008 2 次提交
  27. 31 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  29. 11 7月, 2008 1 次提交
    • J
      x86: fix compile error in current tip.git · 27cb0a75
      由 Jeremy Fitzhardinge 提交于 
      Gas 2.15 complains about 32-bit registers being used in lea.

  AS      arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.o
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.S: Assembler messages:
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.S:188: Error: `(%edx,%ecx,8)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_64.S:257: Error: `(%edx,%ecx,8)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
  AS      arch/x86/lib/copy_user_nocache_64.o
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_nocache_64.S: Assembler messages:
/local/scratch-2/jeremy/hg/xen/paravirt/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_nocache_64.S:107: Error: `(%edx,%ecx,8)' is not a valid 64 bit base/index expression
Signed-off-by: NJeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
Cc: Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      27cb0a75
  31. 09 7月, 2008 21 次提交