[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130524130032.GA10167@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:00:32 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-m32r@...linux-m32r.org,
linux-m32r-ja@...linux-m32r.org, microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au,
linux-am33-list@...hat.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] powerpc: uaccess s/might_sleep/might_fault/
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:59:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ do { \
> > long __pu_err; \
> > __typeof__(*(ptr)) __user *__pu_addr = (ptr); \
> > if (!is_kernel_addr((unsigned long)__pu_addr)) \
> > - might_sleep(); \
> > + might_fault(); \
> > __chk_user_ptr(ptr); \
> > __put_user_size((x), __pu_addr, (size), __pu_err); \
> > __pu_err; \
> >
>
> Another observation:
>
> if (!is_kernel_addr((unsigned long)__pu_addr))
> might_sleep();
>
> is almost the same as
>
> might_fault();
>
> except that it does not call might_lock_read().
>
> The version above may have been put there intentionally and correctly, but
> if you want to replace it with might_fault(), you should remove the
> "if ()" condition.
>
> Arnd
Well not exactly. The non-inline might_fault checks the
current segment, not the address.
I'm guessing this is trying to do the same just without
pulling in segment_eq, but I'd like a confirmation
from more PPC maintainers.
Guys would you ack
- if (!is_kernel_addr((unsigned long)__pu_addr))
- might_fault();
+ might_fault();
on top of this patch?
Also, any volunteer to test this (not just test-build)?
--
MST
--
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