From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A0F196DA2 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:34:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729600457; cv=none; b=jj0gBtp/Dy33GCaMkbR3sXIRvIrLTwiCo2GCKFoCZ+zjTxhlLMmYTsVhVbWi+mIb1BgXYBVheDaeLypfC72dRdF16KKYOlfEPHofHVQIUh895wFgX6k6b6RvZ/R9a1yYZHZ+MINpCguKsgGatMBKvdEYCg7UarJ39+CH/GosZE0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729600457; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/2F4yJCj0L92MREys6bmvI9WZu1EIorOBPsQNU0+nvQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=BQg+kAo0ssuUK94FNXexZlBPyiRG0G6FHQ2dQF3LPfdLGGb1AI3RA/C8zkyp0qPd2VfI+Q+Ch5jvtANdHM+fu7eLfBbXL6Z2IBInpzmv+gX/IH/QTBUXMOuXmx5ZbTi2dZjeySeuDz5miHGbkcu/y2+95cxmNGoTUcVKTVz4Log= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D51497; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.66.29] (unknown [10.57.66.29]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B211E3F71E; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12041781-6be0-4492-b352-a8d153de3415@arm.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 14:34:09 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] arm64: signal: Improve POR_EL0 handling to avoid uaccess failures To: Dave Martin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, aruna.ramakrishna@oracle.com, broonie@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, jeffxu@chromium.org, joey.gouly@arm.com, shuah@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org References: <20241017133909.3837547-1-kevin.brodsky@arm.com> <20241017133909.3837547-4-kevin.brodsky@arm.com> Content-Language: en-GB From: Kevin Brodsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 21/10/2024 15:43, Dave Martin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:06:07PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote: >> On 17/10/2024 17:53, Dave Martin wrote: >>> [...] >>>> +/* >>>> + * Save the unpriv access state into ua_state and reset it to disable any >>>> + * restrictions. >>>> + */ >>>> +static void save_reset_unpriv_access_state(struct unpriv_access_state *ua_state) >>> Would _user_ be more consistent naming than _unpriv_ ? >> I did ponder on the naming. I considered user_access/uaccess instead of >> unpriv_access, but my concern is that it might imply that only uaccess >> is concerned, while in reality loads/stores that userspace itself >> executes are impacted too. I thought using the "unpriv" terminology from >> the Arm ARM (used for stage 1 permissions) might avoid such >> misunderstanding. I'm interested to hear opinions on this, maybe >> accuracy sacrifices readability. > "user_access" seemed natural to me: it parses equally as "[user > access]" (i.e., uaccess) and "[user] access" (i.e., access by, to, or > on behalf of user(space)). > > Introducing an architectural term when there is already a generic OS > and Linux kernel term that means the right thing seemed not to improve > readability, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. Both good points. "user_access" seems to strike the right balance, plus it's slightly shorter. Will switch to that naming in v2. Kevin