Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 6/6] powerpc/signal: Use unsafe_copy_siginfo_to_user() | From | Christophe Leroy <> | Date | Mon, 13 Sep 2021 19:14:55 +0200 |
| |
Le 13/09/2021 à 17:57, Eric W. Biederman a écrit : > Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes: > >> Use unsafe_copy_siginfo_to_user() in order to do the copy >> within the user access block. >> >> On an mpc 8321 (book3s/32) the improvment is about 5% on a process >> sending a signal to itself. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> >> --- >> v3: Don't leave compat aside, use the new unsafe_copy_siginfo_to_user32() >> --- >> arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c | 8 +++----- >> arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_64.c | 5 +---- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c >> index ff101e2b3bab..3a2db8af2d65 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c >> @@ -710,9 +710,9 @@ static long restore_tm_user_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, struct mcontext __user *s >> } >> #endif >> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64 >> +#ifndef CONFIG_PPC64 >> >> -#define copy_siginfo_to_user copy_siginfo_to_user32 >> +#define unsafe_copy_siginfo_to_user32 unsafe_copy_siginfo_to_user >> >> #endif /* CONFIG_PPC64 */ > > Any particular reason to reverse the sense of this #ifdef?
Yes I had double definition of unsafe_copy_siginfo_to_user(), I could have ifdefed out unsafe_copy_siginfo_to_user() in signal.h, but I prefered to ifdef out copy_siginfo_to_user32() in compat.h
> > Otherwise this change looks much cleaner.
Thanks Christophe
| |