[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 21:19:15 +0200
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, igor.stoppa@...wei.com,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] __wr_after_init: x86_64: __wr_op
On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op"
> function.
I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first patchset,
about duplication. Somehow, I'm still thinking to the endgame of having
higher-level functions, like list management.
> Here's some generic code:
thank you, I have one question, below
> void *wr_memcpy(void *dst, void *src, unsigned int len)
> {
> wr_state_t wr_state;
> void *wr_poking_addr = __wr_addr(dst);
>
> local_irq_disable();
> wr_enable(&wr_state);
> __wr_memcpy(wr_poking_addr, src, len);
Is __wraddr() invoked inside wm_memcpy() instead of being invoked
privately within __wr_memcpy() because the code is generic, or is there
some other reason?
> wr_disable(&wr_state);
> local_irq_enable();
>
> return dst;
> }
>
> Now, x86 can define appropriate macros and functions to use the temporary_mm
> functionality, and other architectures can do what makes sense to them.
>
--
igor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
