From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D1BC43461 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 06:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B762145D for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 06:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725823AbgIGGEA (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 02:04:00 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:47705 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725803AbgIGGEA (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 02:04:00 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 09E1468BFE; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 08:03:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 08:03:56 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Alexander Viro , linux-riscv , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arch , Russell King Subject: Re: remove set_fs for riscv Message-ID: <20200907060356.GA18655@lst.de> References: <20200904165216.1799796-1-hch@lst.de> <20200905071735.GB13228@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:14:59AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I've had a first pass at this now, see > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git/log/?h=arm-kill-set_fs > > There are a couple of things in there that ended up uglier than I was > hoping for, and it's completely untested beyond compilation. Is this > roughly what you had in mind? I can do some testing then and post > it to the Arm mailing list. Looks sensible. The OABI hacks a are a little ugly, but so would be every other alternative. Note that you don't need to add a TASK_SIZE_MAX definition to arm if you base it on my series as that provides a default one. I also think with these changes arm/nommu should be able to use UACCESS_MEMCPY.