[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <528D09B4.9040805@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:12:52 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86-64, copy_user: Remove zero byte check before
copy user buffer.
On 11/19/2013 11:38 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you have a preference:
>>
>> 1. Considering the 32-bit truncation incidental (take it or leave it);
>> 2. Require the 32-bit truncation, or
>> 3. Get rid of it completely?
>
> I don't have a huge preference, but I hate the current situation (with
> Fenghua's patch) where it's not consistent. One path uses just 32-bits
> of the count (thanks to the "mov %edx,%ecx") while another path uses
> 64 bits.
>
> One or the other, but not a mixture of both.
>
> And only tangentially related to this: I do think that we could be
> stricter about the count. Make it oops if the high bits are set,
> rather than overwrite a lot of memory. So I would not be adverse to
> limiting the count to 31 bits (or even less) explicitly, and thus
> making the while 32-vs-64 bit issue moot.
>
I guess the question is if we want to spend the extra cycles on a test
and branch. For now I suggest that we just put back the truncation in
the form of a movl instruction.
-hpa
--
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