From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-um <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] maccess: rename strnlen_unsafe_user to strnlen_user_unsafe
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 19:47:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200506174747.GA7549@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wj3T6u_kj8r9f3aGXCjuyN210_gJC=AXPFm9=wL-dGALA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 10:44:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So while I think using a consistent convention is good, and it's true
> that there is a difference in the convention between the two cases
> ("unsafe" at the beginning vs end), one of them is actually about the
> safety and security of the operation (and we have automated logic
> these days to verify it on x86), the other has nothing to do with
> "safety", really.
>
> Would it be better to standardize around a "probe_xyz()" naming?
So:
probe_strncpy, probe_strncpy_user, probe_strnlen_user?
Sounds weird, but at least it is consistent.
> Or perhaps a "xyz_nofault()" naming?
That sounds a little better:
strncpy_nofault, strncpy_user_nofault, strnlen_user_nofault
> I realize this is nit-picky, and I think the patch series as-is is
> already an improvement, but I do think our naming in this area is
> really quite bad.
Always open for improvements :)
> The fact that we have "probe_kernel_read()" but then
> "strncpy_from_user_unsafe()" for the _same_ conceptual difference
> really tells me how inconsistent the naming for these kinds of "we
> can't take page faults" is. No?
True. If we wanted to do _nofaul, what would the basic read/write
versions be?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-06 17:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-06 6:22 clean up and streamline probe_kernel_* and friends Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 01/15] maccess: unexport probe_kernel_write and probe_user_write Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 02/15] maccess: remove various unused weak aliases Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 03/15] maccess: remove duplicate kerneldoc commens Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 04/15] maccess: clarify kerneldoc comments Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 05/15] maccess: update the top of file comment Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 06/15] maccess: rename strncpy_from_unsafe_user to strncpy_from_user_unsafe Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 07/15] maccess: rename strncpy_from_unsafe_strict to strncpy_from_kernel_unsafe Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 08/15] maccess: rename strnlen_unsafe_user to strnlen_user_unsafe Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 17:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-06 17:47 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-05-06 17:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 09/15] maccess: remove probe_read_common and probe_write_common Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 10/15] maccess: unify the probe kernel arch hooks Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 11/15] maccess: remove strncpy_from_unsafe Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-11 5:34 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 12/15] maccess: always use strict semantics for probe_kernel_read Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-11 5:05 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-05-11 5:27 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 13/15] maccess: move user access routines together Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 14/15] maccess: allow architectures to provide kernel probing directly Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 6:22 ` [PATCH 15/15] x86: use non-set_fs based maccess routines Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-06 18:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-06 19:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-07 5:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200506174747.GA7549@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).