[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <486B8B6C.2050109@firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:06:36 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Vitaly Mayatskikh <v.mayatskih@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Introduce copy_user_handle_tail routine
> +unsigned long
> +copy_user_handle_tail(char *to, char *from, unsigned len, unsigned zerorest)
> +{
> + char c;
> + unsigned zero_len;
> +
> + for (; len; --len) {
> + if (__get_user_nocheck(c, from++, sizeof(char)))
> + break;
> + if (__put_user_nocheck(c, to++, sizeof(char)))
get/put user are macros and it's normally not a good idea to use ++ in macro
arguments because they might expand multiple times.
sizeof(char) is always 1
Also hopefully there's no sign extension anywhere with the signed char
Overall you could write it much simpler with a rep ; movs I think,
like traditional linux did.
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + for (c = 0, zero_len = len; zerorest && zero_len; --zero_len)
> + if (__put_user_nocheck(c, to++, sizeof(char)))
> + break;
Similar problem with ++
If zerorest is ever 0 then retesting it on every iteration seems somewhat dumb.
I think a simple memset would be actually ok, i don't think we ever zero
anything that faults. That would be obviously racy anyways. If the zero
are supposed to override something then a racing user thread could always
catch it.
-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