On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 02:38:24PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Al Viro > > Sent: 23 September 2020 15:17 > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 08:05:41AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > +struct iovec *iovec_from_user(const struct iovec __user *uvec, > > > + unsigned long nr_segs, unsigned long fast_segs, > > > > Hmm... For fast_segs unsigned long had always been ridiculous > > (4G struct iovec on caller stack frame?), but that got me wondering about > > nr_segs and I wish I'd thought of that when introducing import_iovec(). > > > > The thing is, import_iovec() takes unsigned int there. Which is fine > > (hell, the maximal value that can be accepted in 1024), except that > > we do pass unsigned long syscall argument to it in some places. > > It will make diddly-squit difference. > The parameters end up in registers on most calling conventions. > Plausibly you get an extra 'REX' byte on x86 for the 64bit value. > What you want to avoid is explicit sign/zero extension and value > masking after arithmetic. Don't tell me what I want; your telepathic abilities are consistently sucky. I am *NOT* talking about microoptimization here. I have described the behaviour change of syscall caused by commit 5 years ago. Which is generally considered a problem. Then I asked whether that behaviour change would fall under the "if nobody noticed, it's not a userland ABI breakage" exception. Could you show me the point where I have expressed concerns about the quality of amd64 code generated for that thing, before or after the change in question?
