[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230329235442.GA10790@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:54:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, avagin@...il.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, krisman@...labora.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, tongtiangen@...wei.com,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 1/4] asm-generic,arm64: create task variant of
access_ok
On 03/29, Gregory Price wrote:
>
> Last note on this before I push up another patch set.
>
> The change from __get_user to get_user also introduces a call to
> might_fault() which adds a larger callstack for every syscall /
> dispatch. This turns into a might_sleep and might_reschedule, which
> represent a very different pattern of execution from before.
might_fault() is nop unless CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING || DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP.
Again, I won't really argue with task_access_ok(). Just I am not sure
2/4 gives enough justification for this new helper with unclear semantics
(until we ensure that access_ok() doesn't depend on current).
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists