[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200702140447.GN2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 15:04:47 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: objtool clac/stac handling change..
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:01:59PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:34:31PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > I think we can do something to make it work.
> >
> > We don't have an equivalent of x86's ex_handler_uaccess(), so it's not
> > quite as easy as whacking a user_access_end() in there.
> >
> > Probably the simplest option for us is to just handle it in our
> > unsafe_op_wrap(). I'll try and come up with something tomorrow.
>
> The goal is to avoid using unsafe_op_wrap()...
Incidentally, the change Linus proposes would affect unsafe_put_user()
as well. And you are not using unsafe_op_wrap() anywhere on that
path...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists