Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix __user annotation in traps_misaligned.c

[Clément Léger]

On 24/11/2023 07:05, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 02:16:17PM +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static inline int get_insn(struct pt_regs *regs, ulong mepc, ulong *r_insn)
>>  static inline int load_u8(struct pt_regs *regs, const u8 *addr, u8 *r_val)
>>  {
>>  	if (user_mode(regs)) {
>> -		return __get_user(*r_val, addr);
>> +		return __get_user(*r_val, (u8 __user *)addr);
>>  	} else {
>>  		*r_val = *addr;
>>  		return 0;
> 
> This is the wrong way to approach it.  Pass the untype unsigned long
> from the caller instead and do a single round of casts from that
> depending on the address_space.

I sent a similar patch two days ago with the same modification. I'm not
sure to get it. Why is it better to pass the "unsigned long" type from
the caller ? I mean, the resulting code would look like this right ?

static inline int store_u8(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr, u8 val)
{
	if (user_mode(regs)) {
		return __put_user(val, (u8 __user *)addr);
	} else {
		*addr = (u8 *)val;
		return 0;
	}
}

Is this better from a "semantic" point of view and be sure the casts are
done in a single place ?

> 
> And please also remove this horrible else after return entipattern
> while you're at it.

Acked,

Thanks,

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv