> On Feb 16, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 02:50:15PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> What is the actual problem? We’re not actually demand-faulting this data,
>> are we? Are we just overrunning the buffer because the from_user helpers
>> are too clever? Can we fix it for real by having the fancy helpers do
>> *aligned* loads so that they don’t overrun the buffer? Heck, this might be
>> faster, too.
>
> Unaligned _stores_ are not any cheaper, and you'd get one hell of
> extra arithmetics from trying to avoid both. Check something
> like e.g. memcpy() on alpha, where you really have to keep all
> accesses aligned, both on load and on store side.
I think we should avoid unaligned loads and do unaligned stores instead.
I would general expect that unaligned stores are a bit cheaper since they don’t
need to complete for the comparisons to happen.
But I maintain my claim that this code should not be overrunning its input
buffer into the next page, since it could have observable side effects.
>
> Can't we just pad the buffers a bit? Making sure that name_buf
> and symlink_buf are _not_ followed by unmapped pages shouldn't
> be hard. Both are allocated by kmalloc(), so...
>
> What am I missing here?
