[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0906212059340.2784@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:26:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel fixes
Linus,
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So just doing a "make_sure_its_writable()" and using handle_fault() is the
> right thing to do. Because it's what get_user_fast() would have done too,
> except it would have gone through first the fast case, and failed, then
> the slow case, and failed the lookup there, and then the slow case would
> have done that handle_mm_fault() in the end anyway.
>
> In fact, since you're not actually interested in the page, you _could_
> just do
>
> get_user_pages(tsk, mm, uaddr, 4, 1, 0, NULL, NULL);
>
> where a NULL "pages" pointer already tells get_user_pages() that you're
> not interested.
>
> That's at least cleaner than doing a "gup_fast()" (which isn't fast), and
> then freeing the page that you weren't even interested in.
Yes, you are right. The retry fixup path is after the fault and we
should go through handle_mm_fault as long as we do not have a general
available nondestructive counterpart of get_user().
I confused myself by twisting my brain whether we can simplify or even
get rid of the whole retry business.
Sorry, I did not express myself very well - looking for more than an
hour into the futex code definitely hurts your brain. It's worse than
the drugs you suspected we're on. :)
Thanks,
tglx
--
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