[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8820745F-E761-42E6-8A70-7B04EE70692C@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:59:58 -0700
From: hpa@...or.com
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: fix code generation in put_user()
On October 23, 2020 1:55:22 PM PDT, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>Thanks, applied.
>
>On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 1:32 PM Rasmus Villemoes
><linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if one would also need to make __ptr_pu and __ret_pu
>> explicitly "%"_ASM_CX".
>
>No, the "c"/"0" thing is much better, and makes it properly atomic wrt
>the actual asm.
>
>As mentioned to Andy, the "register asm()" thing is not uncommon and
>often useful, but when you can specify the register directly in asm,
>that's certainly simpler and more straightforward and preferred.
>
> Linus
There is no same reason to mess around with hacks when we are talking about dx:ax, though. We have to do pretty ugly hacks when other register pairs are involved, but "A" is there for a reason. _ASM_AX64 maybe...
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists