Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Feb 2021 20:39:49 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/11] x86/fault: Rename no_context() to kernelmode_fixup_or_oops() |
| |
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 09:24:40AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > The name no_context() has never been very clear. It's only called for > faults from kernel mode, so rename it and change the no-longer-useful > user_mode(regs) check to a WARN_ON_ONCE. > > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> > --- > arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 28 ++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > index 177b612c7f33..04cc98ec2423 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > @@ -693,17 +693,10 @@ page_fault_oops(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, > } > > static noinline void > -no_context(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, > - unsigned long address, int signal, int si_code) > +kernelmode_fixup_or_oops(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, > + unsigned long address, int signal, int si_code)
Ew, I don't like functions with "or" in the name - they're probably not doing one thing only as they should.
Why not simply "handle_kernel_fault" ?
Also, all the callsites now do:
if (!user_mode(regs)) { kernelmode_fixup_or_oops ...
I guess you can push the "user_mode" check inside that function for less hairy code at the callsites.
> { > - if (user_mode(regs)) { > - /* > - * This is an implicit supervisor-mode access from user > - * mode. Bypass all the kernel-mode recovery code and just > - * OOPS. > - */ > - goto oops; > - } > + WARN_ON_ONCE(user_mode(regs));
I guess...
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |