> On Oct 19, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 10/19/2018 09:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> That looks like a good API in general. The ffs_user_copy_worker that
>>> Sebastian mentioned seems to be used by AIO, in which case of course it
>>> has to happen in a kernel thread.
>>>
>>> But while the API is good, deciding on the desired semantics is
>>> "interesting". The submitting thread might be changing PKRU between the
>>> time the I/O operation is submitted and the time it is completed, for
>>> example.
>> I think there’s only one sensible answer: capture PKRU at the time of
>> submission.
>
> I think it's much more straightforward to just not enforce pkeys.
> Having this "phantom" value could cause a very odd, nearly undebuggable
> I/O failure.
But now we have the reverse. The IO can work if it’s truly async but, if the
kernel decides to synchronously complete IO (with GUP or copy_to_user), it’ll
fail, right. This isn’t exactly friendly either.
