csky: Fixup raw_copy_from_user()

If raw_copy_from_user(to, from, N) returns K, callers expect
the first N - K bytes starting at to to have been replaced with
the contents of corresponding area starting at from and the last
K bytes of destination *left* *unmodified*.

What arch/sky/lib/usercopy.c is doing is broken - it can lead to e.g.
data corruption on write(2).

raw_copy_to_user() is inaccurate about return value, which is a bug,
but consequences are less drastic than for raw_copy_from_user().
And just what are those access_ok() doing in there?  I mean, look into
linux/uaccess.h; that's where we do that check (as well as zero tail
on failure in the callers that need zeroing).

AFAICS, all of that shouldn't be hard to fix; something like a patch
below might make a useful starting point.

I would suggest moving these macros into usercopy.c (they are never
used anywhere else) and possibly expanding them there; if you leave
them alive, please at least rename __copy_user_zeroing(). Again,
it must not zero anything on failed read.

Said that, I'm not sure we won't be better off simply turning
usercopy.c into usercopy.S - all that is left there is a couple of
functions, each consisting only of inline asm.

Guo Ren reply:

Yes, raw_copy_from_user is wrong, it's no need zeroing code.

unsigned long _copy_from_user(void *to, const void __user *from,
unsigned long n)
{
        unsigned long res = n;
        might_fault();
        if (likely(access_ok(from, n))) {
                kasan_check_write(to, n);
                res = raw_copy_from_user(to, from, n);
        }
        if (unlikely(res))
                memset(to + (n - res), 0, res);
        return res;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(_copy_from_user);

You are right and access_ok() should be removed.

but, how about:
do {
...
        "2:     stw     %3, (%1, 0)     \n"             \
+       "       subi    %0, 4          \n"               \
        "9:     stw     %4, (%1, 4)     \n"             \
+       "       subi    %0, 4          \n"               \
        "10:    stw     %5, (%1, 8)     \n"             \
+       "       subi    %0, 4          \n"               \
        "11:    stw     %6, (%1, 12)    \n"             \
+       "       subi    %0, 4          \n"               \
        "       addi    %2, 16          \n"             \
        "       addi    %1, 16          \n"             \

Don't expand __ex_table

AI Viro reply:

Hey, I've no idea about the instruction scheduling on csky -
if that doesn't slow the things down, all the better.  It's just
that copy_to_user() and friends are on fairly hot codepaths,
and in quite a few situations they will dominate the speed of
e.g. read(2).  So I tried to keep the fast path unchanged.
Up to the architecture maintainers, obviously.  Which would be
you...

As for the fixups size increase (__ex_table size is unchanged)...
You have each of those macros expanded exactly once.
So the size is not a serious argument, IMO - useless complexity
would be, if it is, in fact, useless; the size... not really,
especially since those extra subi will at least offset it.

Again, up to you - asm optimizations of (essentially)
memcpy()-style loops are tricky and can depend upon the
fairly subtle details of architecture.  So even on something
I know reasonably well I would resort to direct experiments
if I can't pass the buck to architecture maintainers.

It *is* worth optimizing - this is where read() from a file
that is already in page cache spends most of the time, etc.

Guo Ren reply:

Thx, after fixup some typo “sub %0, 4”, apply the patch.

TODO:
 - user copy/from codes are still need optimizing.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/arch/csky/lib/usercopy.c b/arch/csky/lib/usercopy.c
index 647a23986fb5..3c9bd645e643 100644
--- a/arch/csky/lib/usercopy.c
+++ b/arch/csky/lib/usercopy.c
@@ -7,10 +7,7 @@
 unsigned long raw_copy_from_user(void *to, const void *from,
 			unsigned long n)
 {
-	if (access_ok(from, n))
-		__copy_user_zeroing(to, from, n);
-	else
-		memset(to, 0, n);
+	___copy_from_user(to, from, n);
 	return n;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(raw_copy_from_user);
@@ -18,8 +15,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(raw_copy_from_user);
 unsigned long raw_copy_to_user(void *to, const void *from,
 			unsigned long n)
 {
-	if (access_ok(to, n))
-		__copy_user(to, from, n);
+	___copy_to_user(to, from, n);
 	return n;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(raw_copy_to_user);