[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpU+xHww_JCYYA4kAKCXmOZpZeu=+rnCyRL-5dW5Uxk1hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:50:08 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Xin Tong <xerox.time.tech@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: copy_*_user
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Xin Tong <xerox.time.tech@...il.com> wrote:
> I am investigating copy_from_user and copy_to_user in linux under
> i386. These two function both take a pointer with virtual address and
> a pointer with physical address.
>
> copy_from_user calls __copy_from_user_ll and copy_to_user calls
> __copy_to_user_ll. It make sense to me that __copy_to_user_ll converts
> the virtual address to physical address using the current process's
> page table.
>
[...]
> But it seems to be that __copy_from_user_ll is not converted the
> address at all before attempting to copy. Can someone help explain to
> me why ?
>
You missed that __copy_to_user_ll() only does that when CONFIG_X86_WP_WORKS_OK
is not defined. And there is a comment right inside __copy_to_user_ll() said:
/*
* CPU does not honor the WP bit when writing
* from supervisory mode, and due to preemption or SMP,
* the page tables can change at any time.
* Do it manually. Manfred <manfred@...orfullife.com>
*/
this is why it uses kmap_atomic()+memcpy() to copy the data.
Also, all the addresses are virtual address.
--
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