On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 06:13:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 20:53:40 +0100 > Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> wrote: > valid user address. > > > > BTW, arm64 also bails out early in do_page_fault() if in_atomic() but I > > suspect that's not the case here. > > > > Adding Al Viro since since he wrote a large part of uaccess.h. > > > > So, __copy_from_user_inatomic() is supposed to be called if > pagefault_disable() has already been called? If this is the case, can we > add more comments to this code?
Just to check, you're asking for better comments in <linux/uaccess.h>, right? > I've been using the inatomic() version this > way in preempt disabled locations since 2016. > > Looks like it needs to be converted to copy_from_user_nofault(). > > Luo, this version of the patch looks legit, no need for a v2. > > I just wanted to figure out why __copy_from_user_inatomic() wasn't atomic. > If anything, it needs to be better documented. If that had roughly the same kerneldoc comment as for __copy_to_user_inatomic(), would that be sufficient, or do you think both need to be made more explicit? Mark.
