[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o803vtzp.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 14:02:50 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 03/10] x86: Introduce userspace API to handle per-thread
features
On Wed, May 11 2022 at 05:27, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Add three new arch_prctl() handles:
>
> +static long thread_feature_prctl(struct task_struct *task, int option,
> + unsigned long features)
Bah. I really hate the task pointer on all these x86 prctls. @task must
always be current, so this @task argument is just confusion.
> +{
> + const unsigned long known_features = 0;
> +
> + if (features & ~known_features)
> + return -EINVAL;
This implementation allows to task->read features_[locked] with
@features == 0. That should be documented somewhere.
> + if (option == ARCH_THREAD_FEATURE_LOCK) {
> + task->thread.features_locked |= features;
> + return task->thread.features_locked;
> + }
> + /* Do not allow to change locked features */
> + if (features & task->thread.features_locked)
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> + if (option == ARCH_THREAD_FEATURE_DISABLE) {
> + task->thread.features &= ~features;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* Handle ARCH_THREAD_FEATURE_ENABLE */
> +
> + task->thread.features |= features;
> +out:
> + return task->thread.features;
Eyes bleed.
if (option == ARCH_THREAD_FEATURE_ENABLE)
task->thread.features |= features;
else
task->thread.features &= ~features;
return task->thread.features;
It's bloody obvious from the code that the counterpart of enable is
disable, no? So neither the goto nor the 'comment the obvious' is useful
in any way.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists