From: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 01/10] s390/uaccess: Add storage key checked access to user memory
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 19:19:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YemnprCIEjjGFeTn@osiris> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YelcCEuVbIg9ND90@osiris>
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 01:56:40PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > 2. Implementation changes
> > 2.1 Modify common code
>
> In general such changes are done in way that common code is or _may_ be
> modified to fulfill our needs. Common code header file explicitely states
> that architectures should get rid of private instances of
> copy_{to,from}_user() and __copy_{to,from}_user{,_inatomic}().
>
> So we should not add anything like that to arch code again, since nobody
> would expect that.
Or to be more specific: I think the most simple solution would be to
try to get the new *key variants into include/linux/uaccess.h, and add
the raw variants in architecture code, similar to the rest of the
uaccess functions.
There is some (sort of) prior art with copy_mc_to_kernel() even,
though that can only partially be compared.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-20 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-18 9:52 [RFC PATCH v1 00/10] KVM: s390: Do storage key checking Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 01/10] s390/uaccess: Add storage key checked access to user memory Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 13:18 ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-18 15:37 ` Sven Schnelle
2022-01-18 15:52 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 9:48 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-19 11:02 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 13:20 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-20 8:34 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 12:56 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-20 18:19 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2022-01-21 7:32 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-21 11:04 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-21 13:46 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-21 14:26 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-24 10:38 ` [RFC PATCH] uaccess: Add mechanism for " Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-24 17:41 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-25 12:35 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-25 13:23 ` Heiko Carstens
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 02/10] KVM: s390: Honor storage keys when accessing guest memory Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 14:38 ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-20 10:27 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 10:30 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 19:27 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 8:11 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 8:50 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 8:58 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 9:06 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 03/10] KVM: s390: handle_tprot: Honor storage keys Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 04/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Test TEST PROTECTION emulation Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 15:40 ` Janosch Frank
2022-01-21 11:03 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-21 12:28 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-01-21 13:50 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 05/10] KVM: s390: Add optional storage key checking to MEMOP IOCTL Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 11:51 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 06/10] KVM: s390: Add vm IOCTL for key checked guest absolute memory access Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-19 11:52 ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-19 12:46 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-19 12:53 ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-19 13:17 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-20 10:38 ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-20 11:20 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-20 12:23 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-25 12:00 ` Thomas Huth
2022-01-27 16:29 ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-27 17:34 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 07/10] KVM: s390: Rename existing vcpu memop functions Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 08/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Test memops with storage keys Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 09/10] KVM: s390: Add capability for storage key extension of MEM_OP IOCTL Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-01-18 15:12 ` Christian Borntraeger
2022-01-18 9:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 10/10] KVM: s390: selftests: Make use of capability in MEM_OP test Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
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=YemnprCIEjjGFeTn@osiris \
--to=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nrb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=scgl@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
/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.