On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:34:46PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 09/21/2016 10:58 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >Are there other potentially-broken users of virt_addr_valid? It's not > >clear to me what some drivers are doing with this, and therefore whether > >we need to cc stable. > > The number of users is pretty limited. Some of them use it as a debugging > check, others are using it more like hardened usercopy. The number of > users that would actually affect arm64 seems so small I don't think it's > worth trying to backport to stable.
Ok. > Hardened usercopy was getting hit particularly hard because usercopy was > happening on all types of memory whereas the drivers tend to be more limited > in scope. Sure. > >Given the common sub-expression, perhaps it would be better to leave > >these as-is, but prefix them with '_', and after the #endif, have > >something like: > > > >#define _virt_addr_is_linear(kaddr) (((u64)(kaddr)) >= PAGE_OFFSET) > >#define virt_addr_valid(kaddr) (_virt_addr_is_linear(kaddr) && > >_virt_addr_valid(kaddr)) > > > > Good suggestion. FWIW, with that, feel free to add: Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> Thanks, Mark.