[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:27:53 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
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 Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:19:15PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> 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?
I was assuming that __wr_addr() might be costly, and we were trying to
minimise the number of instructions executed while write-rare was enabled.
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.
