From: Kumar Gaurav <kumargauravgupta3@gmail.com>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Clarification needed on use of put_user inside a loop
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:21:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <535A88D5.3030008@gmail.com> (raw)
Hi All,
function put_user() is used to transfer small bytes of data (1-8 byte)
from kernel space to user space and before transferring, it checks for
the user's access over that memory area (in user space of-course) using
function access_ok(). function __put_user() is used for same purpose but
it skips checking permission part.
Hence when transferring data involves loops then checking permission
(using access_ok()) once should be good to go then after we can simply
transfer data using __put_user(), instead of using put_user() itself in
loop.
I have found some codes in the driver which use put_user() in loop. Can
we avoid the overhead of checking the same memory area( where put_user()
writes) again n again using __put_user() in side loop and checking
permission using access_ok before entering the loop?
Below is one of the codes I found.
File Name:sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c
Code
-----------
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(channel_allocations); i++, cap++) { //line
number 1928
int chs_bytes = chs * 4;
int type =
spec->ops.chmap_cea_alloc_validate_get_type(cap, chs);
unsigned int tlv_chmap[8];
if (type < 0)
continue;
if (size < 8)
return -ENOMEM;
if (put_user(type, dst) ||
put_user(chs_bytes, dst + 1))
return -EFAULT;
dst += 2;
size -= 8;
count += 8;
if (size < chs_bytes)
return -ENOMEM;
size -= chs_bytes;
count += chs_bytes;
spec->ops.cea_alloc_to_tlv_chmap(cap,
tlv_chmap, chs);
if (copy_to_user(dst, tlv_chmap, chs_bytes))
return -EFAULT;
dst += chs;
}
---------------------------
Please revert with comment on whether I am correct or not. If yes, I'll
submit the patches for upgrading codes to skip the overhead of checking
memory area for permission.
Regards,
Kumar Gaurav
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kumar Gaurav <kumargauravgupta3@gmail.com>
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Clarification needed on use of put_user inside a loop
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:39:57 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <535A88D5.3030008@gmail.com> (raw)
Hi All,
function put_user() is used to transfer small bytes of data (1-8 byte)
from kernel space to user space and before transferring, it checks for
the user's access over that memory area (in user space of-course) using
function access_ok(). function __put_user() is used for same purpose but
it skips checking permission part.
Hence when transferring data involves loops then checking permission
(using access_ok()) once should be good to go then after we can simply
transfer data using __put_user(), instead of using put_user() itself in
loop.
I have found some codes in the driver which use put_user() in loop. Can
we avoid the overhead of checking the same memory area( where put_user()
writes) again n again using __put_user() in side loop and checking
permission using access_ok before entering the loop?
Below is one of the codes I found.
File Name:sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c
Code
-----------
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(channel_allocations); i++, cap++) { //line
number 1928
int chs_bytes = chs * 4;
int type =
spec->ops.chmap_cea_alloc_validate_get_type(cap, chs);
unsigned int tlv_chmap[8];
if (type < 0)
continue;
if (size < 8)
return -ENOMEM;
if (put_user(type, dst) ||
put_user(chs_bytes, dst + 1))
return -EFAULT;
dst += 2;
size -= 8;
count += 8;
if (size < chs_bytes)
return -ENOMEM;
size -= chs_bytes;
count += chs_bytes;
spec->ops.cea_alloc_to_tlv_chmap(cap,
tlv_chmap, chs);
if (copy_to_user(dst, tlv_chmap, chs_bytes))
return -EFAULT;
dst += chs;
}
---------------------------
Please revert with comment on whether I am correct or not. If yes, I'll
submit the patches for upgrading codes to skip the overhead of checking
memory area for permission.
Regards,
Kumar Gaurav
next reply other threads:[~2014-04-25 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-25 16:09 Kumar Gaurav [this message]
2014-04-25 16:21 ` Clarification needed on use of put_user inside a loop Kumar Gaurav
2014-04-25 19:05 ` Mateusz Guzik
2014-04-25 19:05 ` Mateusz Guzik
2014-04-25 21:34 ` Al Viro
2014-04-25 21:34 ` Al Viro
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=535A88D5.3030008@gmail.com \
--to=kumargauravgupta3@gmail.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.