On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 01:44:02PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
> Commit 4c132d1d844a ("x86/futex: Remove .fixup usage") introduced a new
> extable fixup type, EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG, and commit 4c132d1d844a
> ("x86/futex: Remove .fixup usage") updated the extable fixup type for
> copy-from-user operations, changing it from EX_TYPE_UACCESS to
> EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG. The error context for copy-from-user operations no
> longer functions as an in-kernel recovery context. Consequently, the error
> context for copy-from-user operations no longer functions as an in-kernel
> recovery context, resulting in kernel panics with the message: "Machine
> check: Data load in unrecoverable area of kernel."
>
> The critical aspect is identifying whether the error context involves a
> read from user memory. We do not care about the ex-type if we know its a
Please use passive voice in your commit message: no "we" or "I", etc,
and describe your changes in imperative mood.
Also, pls read section "2) Describe your changes" in
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more details.
Also, see section "Changelog" in
Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
Bottom line is: personal pronouns are ambiguous in text, especially with
so many parties/companies/etc developing the kernel so let's avoid them
please.
"ex-type"?
Please write in plain English - not in a programming language.
> MOV reading from userspace. is_copy_from_user() return true when both of
> the following conditions are met:
>
> - the current instruction is copy
There is no "copy instruction". You mean the "current operation".
> - source address is user memory
So you can simply say "when reading user memory". Simple.
>
> So, use is_copy_from_user() to determin if a context is copy user directly.
Unknown word [determin] in commit message.
Suggestions: ['determine',
Please introduce a spellchecker into your patch creation workflow.
Also, run your commit messages through AI to correct the grammar and
formulations in them.
The more important part which I asked for already is, is is_copy_from_user()
exhaustive in determining the that the operation really is a copy from user?
The EX_TYPE_UACCESS things *explicitly* marked such places in the code. Does
is_copy_from_user() guarantee the same, without false positives?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
