[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgrdOm8RwO+u8bydrbgs0wXJV_9mBYAtzX9d9hEY7a25A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 13:07:37 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm for 6.4
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 3:57 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Please pull some x86/mm changes for 6.4. The only content here is
> solely a new revision of Kirill's Linear Address Masking implementation.
So I was waiting for this for my final piece of the x86 user copy
changes, so here goes...
I think we should now make 'access_ok()' do the same thing that
get/put_user() do with the LAM code: only worry about the sign bit.
So here's my suggested change on top of the current tree. Comments?
PeterZ also added to the cc, because he's the source of that
WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() in the x86 'access_ok()' macro. That's the only
reason x86 has its own copy of that.
I wonder if that WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() should just be removed, or perhaps
moved into the generic code in <asm-generic/access_ok.h>?
Linus
View attachment "0001-x86-64-make-access_ok-independent-of-LAM.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (8169 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists