[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4493a015ffcd4d82bbea7d1e5c2e73e4@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 23:08:58 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] futex, x86/mce: Avoid double machine checks
> I think this is horrid; why can't we have it return something different
> then -EFAULT instead?
I did consider this ... but it appears that architectures aren't unified in the
return value from get_user()
Here's another function involved in the futex call chain leading to this:
static int get_futex_value_locked(u32 *dest, u32 __user *from)
{
int ret;
pagefault_disable();
ret = __get_user(*dest, from);
pagefault_enable();
return ret ? -EFAULT : 0;
}
It seems like the expectation here is just "zero or not" and we
don't care what the "not" value is ... just turn it into -EFAULT.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists