On Tue, 20 Oct 2026 at 03:19, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ( BTW., there's a new dependency introduced by this series,
> if an architecture gets rid of __get_user(), then it must
> define arch_get_kernel_nofault(), otherwise it will gain
> new uses of __get_user()/__put_user() via the generic implementations
> of __get_kernel_nofault() and __put_kernel_nofault(). No big deal
> I suppose. )
Yeah. It didn't actually look too bad to just remove __get_user and
__put_user in general, but I ran out of motivation.
On arm64, it's a non-issue: __get/put_user is the same thing as
get/put_user, and they both do the full checks.
And the bulk of the remaining cases were on architectures that I
didn't feel were a big issue: alpha/mips/sparc.
I *think* they are all trivial - the bulk of them are just the
historical signal stack stuff and should be a direct conversion to
unsafe_get/put_user() wrapped with scoped_user_read/write_access().
So I think 90% of the remaining noise is truly trivial - not like some
of the cases that actually had *semantic* reasons to use
__get/put_user (often very _bad_ semantic reasons, but still).
Not a huge deal, I might get around to it while waiting for test
builds. Or I might not.
Linus
