[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7232f08e-dfe3-43d6-a4f7-abf8360bbfc1@rivosinc.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:28:08 +0100
From: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix __user annotation in traps_misaligned.c
On 24/11/2023 07:05, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 02:16:17PM +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static inline int get_insn(struct pt_regs *regs, ulong mepc, ulong *r_insn)
>> static inline int load_u8(struct pt_regs *regs, const u8 *addr, u8 *r_val)
>> {
>> if (user_mode(regs)) {
>> - return __get_user(*r_val, addr);
>> + return __get_user(*r_val, (u8 __user *)addr);
>> } else {
>> *r_val = *addr;
>> return 0;
>
> This is the wrong way to approach it. Pass the untype unsigned long
> from the caller instead and do a single round of casts from that
> depending on the address_space.
I sent a similar patch two days ago with the same modification. I'm not
sure to get it. Why is it better to pass the "unsigned long" type from
the caller ? I mean, the resulting code would look like this right ?
static inline int store_u8(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr, u8 val)
{
if (user_mode(regs)) {
return __put_user(val, (u8 __user *)addr);
} else {
*addr = (u8 *)val;
return 0;
}
}
Is this better from a "semantic" point of view and be sure the casts are
done in a single place ?
>
> And please also remove this horrible else after return entipattern
> while you're at it.
Acked,
Thanks,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
Powered by blists - more mailing lists