Re: AZFS file system proposal

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Maxim Shchetynin <maxim@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mark Nelson <markn@au1.ibm.com>,
	Gunnar von Boehn <VONBOEHN@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AZFS file system proposal
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:42:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200807081642.19507.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080707173923.17dc6c05@mercedes-benz.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>

On Monday 07 July 2008, Maxim Shchetynin wrote:
> > > +           if (copy_to_user(target, (void*) pin, size)) {
> > > +                   rc = -EFAULT;
> > > +                   goto out;
> > > +           }
> > 
> > Question to the powerpc folks: is copy_to_user safe for an __iomem source?
> > Should there be two copies (memcpy_fromio and copy_to_user) instead?
> 
> I leave this question open.
> 

Cc:'ing some more people that might have more of a clue on this question.
_memcpy_fromio does a "sync" at the start and an "eieio" at the end.
IFAICT, neither are needed here because the source is always memory.

It also handles unaligned memory accesses, which copy_to_user should
also do correctly, so it *looks* like it should work with just a
copy_to_user, but it still feels wrong to use an __iomem pointer
as the source for a copy_to_user.

Any ideas?

	Arnd <><
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev