lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user()
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:59 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Re plotting: how strongly would you object against passing the range to
> user_access_end()? Powerpc folks have a very close analogue of stac/clac,
> currently buried inside their __get_user()/__put_user()/etc. - the same
> places where x86 does, including futex.h and friends.
>
> And there it's even costlier than on x86. It would obviously be nice
> to lift it at least out of unsafe_get_user()/unsafe_put_user() and
> move into user_access_begin()/user_access_end(); unfortunately, in
> one subarchitecture they really want it the range on the user_access_end()
> side as well.

Hmm. I'm ok with that.

Do they want the actual range, or would it prefer some kind of opaque
cookie that user_access_begin() returns (where 0 would mean "failure"
of course)?

I'm thinking like a local_irq_save/restore thing, which might be the
case on yet other architectures.

Linus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-13 22:21    [W:0.184 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site