On Friday 11 July 2008, prodyut hazarika wrote:
> I have a version which just keeps a count of bytes copied till any
> fault happened. Then for any exception, I just substract this value
> from the total number of bytes to be copied, and store in r3 and
> return back. This is the common fixup code for all paths. It makes the
> fixup code much more readable like other architectures (eg. x86).
In some cases, you need to make sure that the return value is exactly
the maximum you could copy, not a little less.
> The current code tries to copy one byte at a time after read fault. I
> don't understand why that is necessary. It then clears out the
> destination. All these logic has made the code very unfriendly to
> read.
I'm not sure if the code is also avoiding unaligned accesses here,
which is not a problem on x86. If you access uncached memory with
unaligned pointers, you get an exception and the fixup code will
copy it just fine with byte accesses.
> 2) For read failure, why do we clear out the destination (lines 509 to
> 529 in arch/powerpc/lib/copy_32.S)? Other architecture don't do that.
All architectures should do that for copy_from_user, to avoid potential
data leaks from the kernel when the data is copied back.
Arnd <><
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
