[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190320094029.ifweqx4wowyyr3wi@kshutemo-mobl1>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:40:29 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, john.hubbard@...il.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder
versions
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:24:00PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> So, I could be persuaded either way. But given the lack of an visible perf
> effects, and given that this could will get removed anyway because we'll
> likely end up with set_page_dirty() called at GUP time instead...it seems
> like it's probably OK to just leave it as is.
Apart from ugly code generated, other argument might be Spectre-like
attacks on these call. I would rather avoid indirect function calls
whenever possible. And I don't think opencodded versions of these
functions would look much worse.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists