[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48582C18.4090900@firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:26:48 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rob Mueller <robm@...tmail.fm>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: BUG: mmapfile/writev spurious zero bytes (x86_64/not i386, bisected,
reproducable)
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The x86-64 copy_*_user functions were always designed to return errors
>> both ways (as in both for load and for store).
>
> That's not the problem, Andi.
>
> The problem is that it returns THE WRONG VALUE!
>
> If the fault happened on the second load,
Loads are not supposed to fault in copy_to_user(). Only stores are.
The way it works is that it assumes that either loads fault (when used
as copy_from_user) or stores (copy_to_user), but never both.
> but the first load was never
> actually paired up with a store (because of unrolling the loop), then YOU
> MUST NOT CLAIM THAT YOU DID A 8-BYTE COPY! Because you have copied exactly
> _zero_ bytes, even though you _loaded_ 8 bytes successfully!
>
> See?
>
> Claiming that you copied 8 bytes when you didn't do anything at all is
> WRONG. It's so incredibly wrong that it is scary.
If your patch fixes something then the main wrong thing is the caller
who passes a faulting source address.
And again it always breaks the other case.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists