linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: gasket: Convert get_user_pages*() --> pin_user

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 14:53:30 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rspringer@...gle.com,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, toddpoynor@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: gasket: Convert get_user_pages*() -->
 pin_user_pages*()

Anyway, can you resend with the commit message re-written.  To me the
information that's most useful is from the lwn article:

   "In short, if pages are being pinned for access to the data
    contained within those pages, pin_user_pages() should be used. For
    cases where the intent is to manipulate the page structures
    corresponding to the pages rather than the data within them,
    get_user_pages() is the correct interface."

What are the runtime implications of this patch?  I'm still not clear on
that honestly.

When I'm reviewing patches, I also want to know how a bug was
introduced.  In this case the original author did everything correctly
but we've just added some new features (cleanups.  whatever).

I did skim the LWN article back in December but I don't remember the
details so I really want all this stuff re-stated in each commit
message.

regards,
dan carpenter