On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 03:27:30PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:08:46PM -0400, Yan Zhao wrote: > > hi > > we were removing this code. see > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200313031109.7989-1-yan.y.z...@intel.com/ > > This didn't make 5.7-rc1. > > > The implementation of vfio_dma_rw() has been in vfio next tree. > > https://github.com/awilliam/linux-vfio/commit/8d46c0cca5f4dc0538173d62cd36b1119b5105bc > > > This made 5.7-rc1, so I'll update the series to take it into account. > > T > > in vfio_dma_rw(), we still use > > bool kthread = current->mm == NULL. > > because if current->mm != NULL and current->flags & PF_KTHREAD, instead > > of calling use_mm(), we first check if (current->mm == mm) and allow > > copy_to_user() if it's true. > > > > Do you think it's all right? > > I can't think of another way for a kernel thread to have a mm indeed. for example, before calling to vfio_dma_rw(), a kernel thread has already called use_mm(), then its current->mm is not null, and it has flag PF_KTHREAD. in this case, we just want to allow the copy_to_user() directly if current->mm == mm, rather than call another use_mm() again.
do you think it makes sense? Thanks Yan > _______________________________________________ > intel-gvt-dev mailing list > intel-gvt-...@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gvt-dev _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
