On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:55 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't care at all. Based on our previous chat I assumed you
> wanted something like this. We might still need the uptr_t for
> setsockopt, though.
No.
What I mean was *not* something like uptr_t.
Just keep the existing "set_fs()". It's not harmful if it's only used
occasionally. We should rename it once it's rare enough, though.
Then, make the following changes:
- all the normal user access functions stop caring. They use
TASK_SIZE_MAX and are done with it. They basically stop reacting to
set_fs().
- then, we can have a few *very* specific cases (like setsockopt,
maybe some random read/write) that we teach to use the new set_fs()
thing.
So in *those* cases, we'd basically just do "oh, ok, we are supposed
to use a kernel pointer" based on the setfs value.
IOW, I mean tto do something much more gradual. No new interfaces, no
new types, just a couple of (very clearly marked!) cases of the legacy
set_fs() behavior.
Linus
