[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45A0CFC6.3030707@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 11:47:34 +0100
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup
On 01/07/2007 11:20 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Rene Herman wrote:
>> How is it for efficiency? I thought it was for correctness.
>> romsignature is using probe_kernel_adress() while all other accesses
>> to the ROMs there aren't.
>>
>> If nothing else, anyone reading that code is likely to ask himself the
>> very same question -- why the one, and not the others.
>
> Well, I was wondering about all the uses of __get_user; why not
> probe_kernel_address() everywhere?
It's just a manual version of probe_kernel_adress():
#define probe_kernel_address(addr, retval) \
({ \
long ret; \
mm_segment_t old_fs = get_fs(); \
\
set_fs(KERNEL_DS); \
pagefault_disable(); \
ret = __get_user(retval, [ ... ]); \
pagefault_enable(); \
set_fs(old_fs); \
ret; \
})
Doing the set_fs() and pagefault_{disable,enable} calls for every single
byte during the checksum seems rather silly. The patch as posted has the
set_fs() and pagefault_ calls only once in probe_roms() (as said when
posted, I'm not sure the pagefault calls are still useful now that it's
no longer a generic function/macro, but used directly at probe_roms() time).
> I think its reasonable to assume that if the signature is mapped and
> correct, then everything else is mapped. That's certainly the case
> for Xen, which is why I added it. If you think this is unclear, then
> I think a comment to explain this rather than code changes is the
> appropriate fix.
I disagree I'm afraid. Given what __get_user compiles to (nothing more
than a .fixup entry, basically) they're largely "free" and it makes the
code completely obvious: "If you're touching this, do so via __get_user
and not directly" and frees it from any assumptions, however reasonable
or unreasonable.
Would you _mind_ if I submit it? If not, if you could comment on whether
or not these pagefault calls are still useful, that would be great. The
comment at probe_kernel_address() says:
* We ensure that the __get_user() is executed in atomic context so that
* do_page_fault() doesn't attempt to take mmap_sem. This makes
* probe_kernel_address() suitable for use within regions where the
* caller already holds mmap_sem, or other locks which nest inside
* mmap_sem
This sounds like it might be nonsensical at probe_roms() time, but I'm
not familiar with these virtualized environments -- I do not know which
assumptions break.
Patch attached again for reference...
Rene.
View attachment "probe_kernel_address.diff" of type "text/plain" (2543 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists