linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/2] riscv: uaccess: rename __get/put_user_nocheck to __get/put_mem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:26:22 +0800
From:   Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Guohanjun <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/2] riscv: uaccess: rename
 __get/put_user_nocheck to __get/put_mem_nocheck



在 2022/8/27 20:49, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 12:43 PM Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com> wrote:
>> 在 2022/8/26 17:30, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
>>
>> I am very interested in the implementation of X86. I need to investigate
>> and consider a cross architecture implementation.
> 
> One more point about the cross-architecture work: it generally makes
> sense to do the most commonly used architectures first, usually
> that would be x86, arm64 and powerpc64, followed by riscv, arm,
> s390 and mips. If we can find something that the first architecture
> maintainers like, everyone else can follow and you don't have to
> rework all of them multiple times before getting to a consensus.
> 
>> However, I understand that the modification of the current patch has
>> little to do with the two points mentioned above. We can optimize the
>> code step by step.
> 
> You are correct that this has little to do with your patch, my point
> was mainly that your patch is moving the code further away from
> the other architectures, so it would make it harder to then do the
> changes we actually want.
> 
>         Arnd

I understand what you mean，it's reasonable.

Thanks,
Tong.
> 
> .