From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Jens Axboe' <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
"op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org"
<op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] tee: Use iov_iter to better support shared buffer registration
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 11:38:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7582460ba52e413eaab26d37fb56beed@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <206b634d-1d10-4057-ad8d-93e29fda5d6e@kernel.dk>
> > As Jens Wiklander has proposed using iov_iter_ubuf() instead of
> > import_ubuf(), should I propose a patch updating import_ubuf() and
> > import_single_range()? Or would you prefer that we keep the functions
> > unchanged for the time being?
>
> Arguably it should be consistent with iovec imports, which return the
> length (or error). But it might be safer to just check access_ok()
> first and then truncate at least, vs what is there now.
Is the access_ok() check even needed when setting up an iov_iter?
It is always checked again when the actual copy is done.
I looked at this a while back and couldn't see any code paths that
relied on the early access_ok() check.
Maybe it is historic?
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-06 11:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-29 16:44 [PATCH v4] tee: Use iov_iter to better support shared buffer registration Arnaud Pouliquen
2023-11-30 7:54 ` Sumit Garg
2023-11-30 9:08 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2023-11-30 12:00 ` Sumit Garg
2023-11-30 13:18 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2023-12-04 12:42 ` Sumit Garg
2023-12-04 16:36 ` Jens Axboe
2023-12-04 16:40 ` Jens Axboe
2023-12-04 17:02 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2023-12-04 17:13 ` Jens Axboe
2023-12-05 16:55 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2023-12-05 17:50 ` Jens Axboe
2023-12-06 11:38 ` David Laight [this message]
2023-12-05 12:07 ` Sumit Garg
2023-12-05 13:45 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
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=7582460ba52e413eaab26d37fb56beed@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jens.wiklander@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org \
--cc=sumit.garg@linaro.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox