On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:25 AM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tsbog...@alpha.franken.de> wrote:
>
> With this patch
[ .. snip snip ..]
> I at least get my simple test cases fixed, but I'm not sure this is
> correct.
I think you really want to do that anyway, just to get things like
wild kernel pointers right (ie think get_kernel_nofault() and friends
for ftrace etc).
They shouldn't happen in any normal situation, but those kinds of
unverified pointers is why we _have_ get_kernel_nofault() in the first
place.
On x86-64, the roughly equivalent situation is that addresses that
aren't in canonical format do not take a #PF (page fault), they take a
#GP (general protection) fault.
So I think you want to do that fixup_exception() for any possible addresses.
> Is there a reason to not also #define TASK_SIZE_MAX __UA_LIMIT like
> for the 32bit case ?
I would suggest against using a non-constant TASK_SIZE_MAX. Being
constant is literally one reason why it exists, when TASK_SIZE itself
has often been about other things (ie "32-bit process").
Having to load variables for things like get_user() is annoying, if
you could do it with a simple constant instead (where that "simple"
part is to avoid having to load big values from a constant pool -
often constants like "high bit set" can be loaded and compared against
more efficiently).
Linus
_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
