On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 09:51:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I can't find anything wrong with this, but who knows what
> patch-blindness I have from looking at a few different versions of it.
> Maybe my eyes just skim over it now.
Same here - I can't look at that code anymore. I'll try to gain some
distance and look at it again later, and do some more extensive testing
too.
> I do note that the clearing of %rax here:
>
> > +.Lerms_exit:
> > + xorl %eax,%eax
> > + RET
>
> seems to be unnecessary, since %rax is never modified in the path
> leading to this. But maybe just as well just for consistency with the
> cases where it *is* used as a temporary.
Yeah.
> And I still suspect that "copy_to_user()" is *much* more interesting
> than "clear_user()", but I guess we can't inline it anyway due to all
> the other overhead (ie access_ok() and stac/clac).
>
> And for a plain "call memcpy/memset", we'd need compiler help to do
> this (at a minimum, we'd have to have the compiler use the 'rep
> movs/stos' register logic, and then we could patch things in place
> afterwards, with objtool creating the alternatives section or
> something).
Yeah, I have this on my todo to research them properly. Will report when
I have something.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
