* Re: rename probe_kernel_* and probe_user_*
2020-06-18 19:48 ` rename probe_kernel_* and probe_user_* Linus Torvalds
@ 2020-06-18 20:51 ` Helge Deller
2020-06-19 6:21 ` Michael Ellerman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Helge Deller @ 2020-06-18 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds, Christoph Hellwig, Russell King, Tony Luck,
Michael Ellerman
Cc: linux-arch, linux-ia64, linux-parisc, the arch/x86 maintainers,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Andrew Morton, linuxppc-dev
On 18.06.20 21:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ Explicitly added architecture lists and developers to the cc to make
> this more visible ]
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:38 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew and I decided to drop the patches implementing your suggested
>> rename of the probe_kernel_* and probe_user_* helpers from -mm as there
>> were way to many conflicts. After -rc1 might be a good time for this as
>> all the conflicts are resolved now.
>
> So I've merged this renaming now, together with my changes to make
> 'get_kernel_nofault()' look and act a lot more like 'get_user()'.
>
> It just felt wrong (and potentially dangerous) to me to have a
> 'get_kernel_nofault()' naming that implied semantics that we're all
> familiar with from 'get_user()', but acting very differently.
>
> But part of the fixups I made for the type checking are for
> architectures where I didn't even compile-test the end result. I
> looked at every case individually, and the patch looks sane, but I
> could have screwed something up.
>
> Basically, 'get_kernel_nofault()' doesn't do the same automagic type
> munging from the pointer to the target that 'get_user()' does, but at
> least now it checks that the types are superficially compatible.
> There should be build failures if they aren't, but I hopefully fixed
> everything up properly for all architectures.
>
> This email is partly to ask people to double-check, but partly just as
> a heads-up so that _if_ I screwed something up, you'll have the
> background and it won't take you by surprise.
Linus. thanks for the heads-up!
With your change it compiles cleanly on 32- and 64-bit parisc.
Helge
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: rename probe_kernel_* and probe_user_*
2020-06-18 19:48 ` rename probe_kernel_* and probe_user_* Linus Torvalds
2020-06-18 20:51 ` Helge Deller
@ 2020-06-19 6:21 ` Michael Ellerman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2020-06-19 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds, Christoph Hellwig, Russell King, Tony Luck, Helge Deller
Cc: linux-arch, linux-ia64, linux-parisc, the arch/x86 maintainers,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Andrew Morton, linuxppc-dev
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> [ Explicitly added architecture lists and developers to the cc to make
> this more visible ]
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:38 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew and I decided to drop the patches implementing your suggested
>> rename of the probe_kernel_* and probe_user_* helpers from -mm as there
>> were way to many conflicts. After -rc1 might be a good time for this as
>> all the conflicts are resolved now.
>
> So I've merged this renaming now, together with my changes to make
> 'get_kernel_nofault()' look and act a lot more like 'get_user()'.
>
> It just felt wrong (and potentially dangerous) to me to have a
> 'get_kernel_nofault()' naming that implied semantics that we're all
> familiar with from 'get_user()', but acting very differently.
>
> But part of the fixups I made for the type checking are for
> architectures where I didn't even compile-test the end result. I
> looked at every case individually, and the patch looks sane, but I
> could have screwed something up.
>
> Basically, 'get_kernel_nofault()' doesn't do the same automagic type
> munging from the pointer to the target that 'get_user()' does, but at
> least now it checks that the types are superficially compatible.
> There should be build failures if they aren't, but I hopefully fixed
> everything up properly for all architectures.
>
> This email is partly to ask people to double-check, but partly just as
> a heads-up so that _if_ I screwed something up, you'll have the
> background and it won't take you by surprise.
The powerpc changes look right, compile cleanly and seem to work
correctly.
cheers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread