On 10/9/24 19:42, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 10/7/24 4:16 PM, David Wei wrote:
From: David Wei <davidhwei@xxxxxxxx>
...
if (copy_to_user(arg, ®, sizeof(reg))) {
+ io_close_zc_rxq(ifq);
ret = -EFAULT;
goto err;
}
if (copy_to_user(u64_to_user_ptr(reg.area_ptr), &area, sizeof(area))) {
+ io_close_zc_rxq(ifq);
ret = -EFAULT;
goto err;
}
ctx->ifq = ifq;
return 0;
Not added in this patch, but since I was looking at rtnl lock coverage,
it's OK to potentially fault while holding this lock? I'm assuming it
is, as I can't imagine any faulting needing to grab it. Not even from
nbd ;-)
I believe it should be fine to fault, but regardless neither this
chunk nor page pinning is under rtnl. Only netdev_rx_queue_restart()
is under it from heavy stuff, intentionally trying to minimise the
section as it's a global lock.
--
Pavel Begunkov
