Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Replace and improve "mcsafe" with copy_safe()

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Erwin Tsaur <erwin.tsaur@intel.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Replace and improve "mcsafe" with copy_safe()
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:39:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgeMRm_yhb_fwvmgdaPMYzgXY01cYvw5htHUCTwSzswqg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1962EE67-8AD1-409D-963A-4F1E1AB3B865@amacapital.net>

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 5:23 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
> > But anyway, I don't hate something like "copy_to_user_fallible()"
> > conceptually. The naming needs to be fixed, in that "user" can always
> > take a fault, so it's the _source_ that can fault, not the "user"
> > part.
>
> I don’t like this.  “user” already implied that basically anything can be wrong with the memory

Maybe I didn't explain.

"user" already implies faulting. We agree.

And since we by definition cannot know what the user has mapped into
user space, *every* normal copy_to_user() has to be able to handle
whatever faults that throws at us.

The reason I dislike "copy_to_user_fallible()" is that the user side
already has that 'fallible".

If it's the _source_ being "fallible" (it really needs a better name -
I will not call it just "f") then it should be "copy_f_to_user()".

That would be ok.

So "copy_f_to_user()" makes sense. But "copy_to_user_f()" does not.
That puts the "f" on the "user", which we already know can fault.

See what I want in the name? I want the name to say which side can
cause problems!

If you are copying memory from some f source, it must not be
"copy_safe()". That doesn't say if the _source_ is f, or the
destination is f.

So "copy_to_f()" makes sense (we don't say "copy_kernel_to_user()" -
the "normal" case is silent), and "copy_from_f()" makes sense.
"copy_in_f()" makes sense too.

But not this "randomly copy some randomly f memory area that I don't
know if it's the source or the destination".

Sometimes you may then use a common implementation for the different
directions - if that works on the architecture.

For example, "copy_to_user()" and "copy_from_user()" on x86 both end
up internally using a shared "copy_user_generic()" implementation. I
wish that wasn't the case (when I asked for what was to become
STAC/CLAC, I asked for one that could determine which direction of a
"rep movs" could touch user space), but it so happens that the
implementations end up being symmetric on x86.

But that's a pure implementation issue, and it very much is not going
to be true in general, and it shouldn't be exposed to users as such
(and we obviously don't).

                Linus
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org