From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux+linuxppc-dev=lists.ozlabs.org@arm.linux.org.uk>
Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk (caramon.arm.linux.org.uk
 [IPv6:2002:4e20:1eda::1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBB7A2C00A5
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 23:52:52 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:41:24 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] uaccess: better might_sleep/might_fault behavior
Message-ID: <20130522134124.GD18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <cover.1368702323.git.mst@redhat.com>
 <201305221125.36284.arnd@arndb.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <201305221125.36284.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-am33-list@redhat.com, Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>,
 x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au,
 Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
 linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@jp.panasonic.com>,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Given the most commonly used functions and a couple of architectures
> I'm familiar with, these are the ones that currently call might_fault()
> 
> 			x86-32	x86-64	arm	arm64	powerpc	s390	generic
> copy_to_user		-	x	-	-	-	x	x
> copy_from_user		-	x	-	-	-	x	x
> put_user		x	x	x	x	x	x	x
> get_user		x	x	x	x	x	x	x
> __copy_to_user		x	x	-	-	x	-	-
> __copy_from_user	x	x	-	-	x	-	-
> __put_user		-	-	x	-	x	-	-
> __get_user		-	-	x	-	x	-	-
> 
> WTF?

I think your table is rather screwed - especially on ARM.  Tell me -
how can __copy_to_user() use might_fault() but copy_to_user() not when
copy_to_user() is implemented using __copy_to_user() ?  Same for
copy_from_user() but the reverse argument - there's nothing special
in our copy_from_user() which would make it do might_fault() when
__copy_from_user() wouldn't.

The correct position for ARM is: our (__)?(pu|ge)t_user all use
might_fault(), but (__)?copy_(to|from)_user do not.  Neither does
(__)?clear_user.  We might want to fix those to use might_fault().