[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200829092347.GA8833@lst.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:23:47 +0200
From: 'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: 'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] fs: don't allow kernel reads and writes without
iter ops
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 03:58:02PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> Is there a real justification for that?
> For system calls supplying both methods makes sense to avoid
> the extra code paths for a simple read/write.
Al asked for it as two of our four in-tree instances do have weird
semantics, and we can't change that any more. And the other two
don't make sense to be used with kernel_read and kernel_write (
(/dev/null and /dev/zero).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists