Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Aug 2022 09:43:18 +0200 | From | Andrew Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/2] riscv: uaccess: rename __get/put_user_nocheck to __get/put_mem_nocheck |
| |
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 02:33:47PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote: > > > 在 2022/8/25 18:56, Andrew Jones 写道: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 03:20:24AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote: > > > Current, The helpers __get/put_user_nocheck() is used by get/put_user() and > > > __get/put_kernel_nofault(), which is not always uaccess, so the name with > > > *user* is not appropriate. > > > > > > Also rename xxx_user_xxx to xxx_mem_xx on the call path of > > > __get/put_user_nocheck() > > > > > > Only refactor code without any functional changes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com> > > > --- > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++---------------- > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h > > > index 855450bed9f5..1370da055b44 100644 > > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/uaccess.h > > > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ > > > * call. > > > */ > > > -#define __get_user_asm(insn, x, ptr, err) \ > > > +#define __get_mem_asm(insn, x, ptr, err) \ > > > do { \ > > > __typeof__(x) __x; \ > > > __asm__ __volatile__ ( \ > > > @@ -64,12 +64,12 @@ do { \ > > > } while (0) > > > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT > > > -#define __get_user_8(x, ptr, err) \ > > > - __get_user_asm("ld", x, ptr, err) > > > +#define __get_mem_8(x, ptr, err) \ > > > + __get_mem_asm("ld", x, ptr, err) > > > #else /* !CONFIG_64BIT */ > > > -#define __get_user_8(x, ptr, err) \ > > > +#define __get_mem_8(x, ptr, err) \ > > > do { \ > > > - u32 __user *__ptr = (u32 __user *)(ptr); \ > > > + u32 *__ptr = (u32 *)(ptr); \ > > > > Doesn't casting away __user reduce sparse's utility? > > From the call logic[1], the address passed into this macro is not > necessarily __user. I understand that no problem will be introduced for > sparse's utility. > > In addition, there is no need to do a pointer conversion here, will be fixed > next version. > > [1] __get_kernel_nofault -> __get_mem_nocheck -> __get_mem_8
Yes, I understood that. My concern was for the times that the address was __user as we'd no longer get that check for them.
Thanks, drew
| |