On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:03 AM Linus Torvalds
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:41 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams(a)intel.com> wrote:
> With the above realizations the name "mcsafe" is no longer accurate and
> copy_safe() is proposed as its replacement. x86 grows a copy_safe_fast()
> implementation as a default implementation that is independent of
> detecting the presence of x86-MCA.
How is this then different from "probe_kernel_read()" and
"probe_kernel_write()"? Other than the obvious "it does it for both
reads and writes"?
IOW, wouldn't it be sensible to try to match the naming and try to
find some unified model for all these things?
I don't like this whole concept.
If I'm going to copy from memory that might be bad but is at least a
valid pointer, I want a function to do this. If I'm going to copy
from memory that might be entirely bogus, that's a different
operation. In other words, if I'm writing e.g. filesystem that is
touching get_user_pages()'d persistent memory, I don't want to panic
if the memory fails, but I do want at least a very loud warning if I
follow a wild pointer.
So I think that probe_kernel_copy() is not a valid replacement for