lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/2] Replace and improve "mcsafe" with copy_safe()
Date


> On Apr 30, 2020, at 5:40 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 5:23 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But anyway, I don't hate something like "copy_to_user_fallible()"
>>> conceptually. The naming needs to be fixed, in that "user" can always
>>> take a fault, so it's the _source_ that can fault, not the "user"
>>> part.
>>
>> I don’t like this. “user” already implied that basically anything can be wrong with the memory
>
> Maybe I didn't explain.
>
> "user" already implies faulting. We agree.
>
> And since we by definition cannot know what the user has mapped into
> user space, *every* normal copy_to_user() has to be able to handle
> whatever faults that throws at us.
>
> The reason I dislike "copy_to_user_fallible()" is that the user side
> already has that 'fallible".
>
> If it's the _source_ being "fallible" (it really needs a better name -
> I will not call it just "f") then it should be "copy_f_to_user()".
>
> That would be ok.
>
> So "copy_f_to_user()" makes sense. But "copy_to_user_f()" does not.
> That puts the "f" on the "user", which we already know can fault.
>
> See what I want in the name? I want the name to say which side can
> cause problems!

We are in violent agreement. I’m moderately confident that I never suggested copy_from_user_f(). We appear to agree completely.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-01 03:10    [W:0.067 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site