[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0806260837290.10755@hp.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Anton Arapov <aarapov@...hat.com>
cc: Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix copy_user on x86_64
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> This is the patch patch for copy_user routine, you've discussed recently.
I don't think it works right.
Isn't this same routine also used for copy_in_user()? For that case both
source _and_ destination can fault, but your fixup routines assume that
onle one of them does (ie the fixup for a load-fault does a store for the
previously loaded valies, and assumes that it doesn't trap)
Also, I'd realy rather do this all by handling the "taul" case in C. We
already effectively have _half_ that support: the "clear end" flag ends up
calling our specialized memset() routine, but it would be much nicer if
we:
- extended the "clear end" flag to be not just "clear end", but also
which direction things are going.
- always call a (fixed) fixup-routine that is written in C (because
performance on a cycle basis no longer matters) that gets the remaining
length and the source and destination as arguments, along with the
"clear and direction flag".
- make that fixup routine do the byte-exact tests and any necessary
clearing (and return the possibly-fixed-up remaining length).
Notice how this way we still have _optimal_ performance for the case where
no fault happens, and we don't need any complex fixups in assembly code at
all - the only thing the asm routines need to do is to get the right
length (we already have this) and fix up the source/dest pointers (we
don't generally have this, although the zero-at-end fixes up the
destination pointer in order to zero it, of course).
Hmm?
Linus
--
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