WSL2-Linux-Kernel/lib/strnlen_user.c

124 строки
3.4 KiB
C
Исходник Обычный вид История

#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/export.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
#include <asm/word-at-a-time.h>
/* Set bits in the first 'n' bytes when loaded from memory */
#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
# define aligned_byte_mask(n) ((1ul << 8*(n))-1)
#else
# define aligned_byte_mask(n) (~0xfful << (BITS_PER_LONG - 8 - 8*(n)))
#endif
/*
* Do a strnlen, return length of string *with* final '\0'.
* 'count' is the user-supplied count, while 'max' is the
* address space maximum.
*
* Return 0 for exceptions (which includes hitting the address
* space maximum), or 'count+1' if hitting the user-supplied
* maximum count.
*
* NOTE! We can sometimes overshoot the user-supplied maximum
* if it fits in a aligned 'long'. The caller needs to check
* the return value against "> max".
*/
static inline long do_strnlen_user(const char __user *src, unsigned long count, unsigned long max)
{
const struct word_at_a_time constants = WORD_AT_A_TIME_CONSTANTS;
long align, res = 0;
unsigned long c;
/*
* Truncate 'max' to the user-specified limit, so that
* we only have one limit we need to check in the loop
*/
if (max > count)
max = count;
/*
* Do everything aligned. But that means that we
* need to also expand the maximum..
*/
align = (sizeof(long) - 1) & (unsigned long)src;
src -= align;
max += align;
unsafe_[get|put]_user: change interface to use a error target label When I initially added the unsafe_[get|put]_user() helpers in commit 5b24a7a2aa20 ("Add 'unsafe' user access functions for batched accesses"), I made the mistake of modeling the interface on our traditional __[get|put]_user() functions, which return zero on success, or -EFAULT on failure. That interface is fairly easy to use, but it's actually fairly nasty for good code generation, since it essentially forces the caller to check the error value for each access. In particular, since the error handling is already internally implemented with an exception handler, and we already use "asm goto" for various other things, we could fairly easily make the error cases just jump directly to an error label instead, and avoid the need for explicit checking after each operation. So switch the interface to pass in an error label, rather than checking the error value in the caller. Best do it now before we start growing more users (the signal handling code in particular would be a good place to use the new interface). So rather than if (unsafe_get_user(x, ptr)) ... handle error .. the interface is now unsafe_get_user(x, ptr, label); where an error during the user mode fetch will now just cause a jump to 'label' in the caller. Right now the actual _implementation_ of this all still ends up being a "if (err) goto label", and does not take advantage of any exception label tricks, but for "unsafe_put_user()" in particular it should be fairly straightforward to convert to using the exception table model. Note that "unsafe_get_user()" is much harder to convert to a clever exception table model, because current versions of gcc do not allow the use of "asm goto" (for the exception) with output values (for the actual value to be fetched). But that is hopefully not a limitation in the long term. [ Also note that it might be a good idea to switch unsafe_get_user() to actually _return_ the value it fetches from user space, but this commit only changes the error handling semantics ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2016-08-08 23:02:01 +03:00
unsafe_get_user(c, (unsigned long __user *)src, efault);
c |= aligned_byte_mask(align);
for (;;) {
unsigned long data;
if (has_zero(c, &data, &constants)) {
data = prep_zero_mask(c, data, &constants);
data = create_zero_mask(data);
return res + find_zero(data) + 1 - align;
}
res += sizeof(unsigned long);
/* We already handled 'unsigned long' bytes. Did we do it all ? */
if (unlikely(max <= sizeof(unsigned long)))
break;
max -= sizeof(unsigned long);
unsafe_[get|put]_user: change interface to use a error target label When I initially added the unsafe_[get|put]_user() helpers in commit 5b24a7a2aa20 ("Add 'unsafe' user access functions for batched accesses"), I made the mistake of modeling the interface on our traditional __[get|put]_user() functions, which return zero on success, or -EFAULT on failure. That interface is fairly easy to use, but it's actually fairly nasty for good code generation, since it essentially forces the caller to check the error value for each access. In particular, since the error handling is already internally implemented with an exception handler, and we already use "asm goto" for various other things, we could fairly easily make the error cases just jump directly to an error label instead, and avoid the need for explicit checking after each operation. So switch the interface to pass in an error label, rather than checking the error value in the caller. Best do it now before we start growing more users (the signal handling code in particular would be a good place to use the new interface). So rather than if (unsafe_get_user(x, ptr)) ... handle error .. the interface is now unsafe_get_user(x, ptr, label); where an error during the user mode fetch will now just cause a jump to 'label' in the caller. Right now the actual _implementation_ of this all still ends up being a "if (err) goto label", and does not take advantage of any exception label tricks, but for "unsafe_put_user()" in particular it should be fairly straightforward to convert to using the exception table model. Note that "unsafe_get_user()" is much harder to convert to a clever exception table model, because current versions of gcc do not allow the use of "asm goto" (for the exception) with output values (for the actual value to be fetched). But that is hopefully not a limitation in the long term. [ Also note that it might be a good idea to switch unsafe_get_user() to actually _return_ the value it fetches from user space, but this commit only changes the error handling semantics ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2016-08-08 23:02:01 +03:00
unsafe_get_user(c, (unsigned long __user *)(src+res), efault);
}
res -= align;
/*
* Uhhuh. We hit 'max'. But was that the user-specified maximum
* too? If so, return the marker for "too long".
*/
if (res >= count)
return count+1;
/*
* Nope: we hit the address space limit, and we still had more
* characters the caller would have wanted. That's 0.
*/
unsafe_[get|put]_user: change interface to use a error target label When I initially added the unsafe_[get|put]_user() helpers in commit 5b24a7a2aa20 ("Add 'unsafe' user access functions for batched accesses"), I made the mistake of modeling the interface on our traditional __[get|put]_user() functions, which return zero on success, or -EFAULT on failure. That interface is fairly easy to use, but it's actually fairly nasty for good code generation, since it essentially forces the caller to check the error value for each access. In particular, since the error handling is already internally implemented with an exception handler, and we already use "asm goto" for various other things, we could fairly easily make the error cases just jump directly to an error label instead, and avoid the need for explicit checking after each operation. So switch the interface to pass in an error label, rather than checking the error value in the caller. Best do it now before we start growing more users (the signal handling code in particular would be a good place to use the new interface). So rather than if (unsafe_get_user(x, ptr)) ... handle error .. the interface is now unsafe_get_user(x, ptr, label); where an error during the user mode fetch will now just cause a jump to 'label' in the caller. Right now the actual _implementation_ of this all still ends up being a "if (err) goto label", and does not take advantage of any exception label tricks, but for "unsafe_put_user()" in particular it should be fairly straightforward to convert to using the exception table model. Note that "unsafe_get_user()" is much harder to convert to a clever exception table model, because current versions of gcc do not allow the use of "asm goto" (for the exception) with output values (for the actual value to be fetched). But that is hopefully not a limitation in the long term. [ Also note that it might be a good idea to switch unsafe_get_user() to actually _return_ the value it fetches from user space, but this commit only changes the error handling semantics ] Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2016-08-08 23:02:01 +03:00
efault:
return 0;
}
/**
* strnlen_user: - Get the size of a user string INCLUDING final NUL.
* @str: The string to measure.
* @count: Maximum count (including NUL character)
*
* Context: User context only. This function may sleep if pagefaults are
* enabled.
*
* Get the size of a NUL-terminated string in user space.
*
* Returns the size of the string INCLUDING the terminating NUL.
* If the string is too long, returns a number larger than @count. User
* has to check the return value against "> count".
* On exception (or invalid count), returns 0.
*
* NOTE! You should basically never use this function. There is
* almost never any valid case for using the length of a user space
* string, since the string can be changed at any time by other
* threads. Use "strncpy_from_user()" instead to get a stable copy
* of the string.
*/
long strnlen_user(const char __user *str, long count)
{
unsigned long max_addr, src_addr;
if (unlikely(count <= 0))
return 0;
max_addr = user_addr_max();
src_addr = (unsigned long)str;
if (likely(src_addr < max_addr)) {
unsigned long max = max_addr - src_addr;
long retval;
user_access_begin();
retval = do_strnlen_user(str, count, max);
user_access_end();
return retval;
}
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(strnlen_user);