Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Rene Herman wrote:
> Doing the set_fs() and pagefault_{disable,enable} calls for every
> single byte during the checksum seems rather silly.

Why?  It's a bit of a performance hit, but that doesn't matter here. 
probe_kernel_address() is semantically the right thing to be using;
open-coding its contents to avoid a few fairly cheap operations is a
backwards step.

> I disagree I'm afraid. Given what __get_user compiles to (nothing more
> than a .fixup entry, basically) they're largely "free" and it makes
> the code completely obvious: "If you're touching this, do so via
> __get_user and not directly" and frees it from any assumptions,
> however reasonable or unreasonable.

My point is that "__get_user" doesn't make much semantic sense here:
we're not talking about usermode pages.  We used to use it quite often
for cases where an access may or may not fault, but now we spell that
"probe_kernel_address()".

> Would you _mind_ if I submit it? If not, if you could comment on
> whether or not these pagefault calls are still useful, that would be
> great.

I don't strongly object to using probe_kernel_address() for all ROM
memory accesses if it makes you feel happier, but I think putting an
open-coded implementation in here is definitely the wrong thing to do.

    J