make 'user_access_begin()' do 'access_ok()'

Originally, the rule used to be that you'd have to do access_ok()
separately, and then user_access_begin() before actually doing the
direct (optimized) user access.

But experience has shown that people then decide not to do access_ok()
at all, and instead rely on it being implied by other operations or
similar.  Which makes it very hard to verify that the access has
actually been range-checked.

If you use the unsafe direct user accesses, hardware features (either
SMAP - Supervisor Mode Access Protection - on x86, or PAN - Privileged
Access Never - on ARM) do force you to use user_access_begin().  But
nothing really forces the range check.

By putting the range check into user_access_begin(), we actually force
people to do the right thing (tm), and the range check vill be visible
near the actual accesses.  We have way too long a history of people
trying to avoid them.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c

@@ -1624,7 +1624,9 @@ end_user:
 		 * happened we would make the mistake of assuming that the
 		 * relocations were valid.
 		 */
-		user_access_begin();
+		if (!user_access_begin(urelocs, size))
+			goto end_user;
+
 		for (copied = 0; copied < nreloc; copied++)
 			unsafe_put_user(-1,
 					&urelocs[copied].presumed_offset,
@@ -2606,7 +2608,16 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 		unsigned int i;
 
 		/* Copy the new buffer offsets back to the user's exec list. */
-		user_access_begin();
+		/*
+		 * Note: count * sizeof(*user_exec_list) does not overflow,
+		 * because we checked 'count' in check_buffer_count().
+		 *
+		 * And this range already got effectively checked earlier
+		 * when we did the "copy_from_user()" above.
+		 */
+		if (!user_access_begin(user_exec_list, count * sizeof(*user_exec_list)))
+			goto end_user;
+
 		for (i = 0; i < args->buffer_count; i++) {
 			if (!(exec2_list[i].offset & UPDATE))
 				continue;