x86/uaccess, sched/preempt: Verify access_ok() context

BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1732698

commit 7c478895 upstream.

I recently encountered wreckage because access_ok() was used where it
should not be, add an explicit WARN when access_ok() is used wrongly.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
[add include/preempt.h to fix build error - gregkh]
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>

arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h

@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 #include <linux/compiler.h>
 #include <linux/thread_info.h>
 #include <linux/string.h>
+#include <linux/preempt.h>
 #include <asm/asm.h>
 #include <asm/page.h>
 #include <asm/smap.h>
@@ -66,6 +67,12 @@ static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, un
 	__chk_range_not_ok((unsigned long __force)(addr), size, limit); \
 })
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
+# define WARN_ON_IN_IRQ()	WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_task())
+#else
+# define WARN_ON_IN_IRQ()
+#endif
+
 /**
  * access_ok: - Checks if a user space pointer is valid
  * @type: Type of access: %VERIFY_READ or %VERIFY_WRITE.  Note that
@@ -87,7 +94,10 @@ static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, un
  * this function, memory access functions may still return -EFAULT.
  */
 #define access_ok(type, addr, size)					\
-	likely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max()))
+({									\
+	WARN_ON_IN_IRQ();						\
+	likely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max()));		\
+})
 
 /*
  * The exception table consists of pairs of addresses relative to the

include/linux/preempt.h

@@ -65,19 +65,24 @@
 
 /*
  * Are we doing bottom half or hardware interrupt processing?
- * Are we in a softirq context? Interrupt context?
- * in_softirq - Are we currently processing softirq or have bh disabled?
- * in_serving_softirq - Are we currently processing softirq?
+ *
+ * in_irq()       - We're in (hard) IRQ context
+ * in_softirq()   - We have BH disabled, or are processing softirqs
+ * in_interrupt() - We're in NMI,IRQ,SoftIRQ context or have BH disabled
+ * in_serving_softirq() - We're in softirq context
+ * in_nmi()       - We're in NMI context
+ * in_task()	  - We're in task context
+ *
+ * Note: due to the BH disabled confusion: in_softirq(),in_interrupt() really
+ *       should not be used in new code.
  */
 #define in_irq()		(hardirq_count())
 #define in_softirq()		(softirq_count())
 #define in_interrupt()		(irq_count())
 #define in_serving_softirq()	(softirq_count() & SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)
-
-/*
- * Are we in NMI context?
- */
 #define in_nmi()		(preempt_count() & NMI_MASK)
+#define in_task()		(!(preempt_count() & \
+				   (NMI_MASK | HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)))
 
 /*
  * The preempt_count offset after preempt_disable();