On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:55 PM Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > Anyway, another question you way: what do you think of try/catch approaches > to __get_user() blocks, like e.g. restore_sigcontext() is doing?
I'd rather have them converted to our unsafe_get/put_user() instead. We don't generate great code for the "get" case (because of how gcc doesn't allow us to mix "asm goto" and outputs), but I really despise the x86-specific "{get,put}_user_ex()" machinery. It's not actually doing a real try/catch at all, and will just keep taking faults if one happens. But I've not gotten around to rewriting those disgusting sequences to the unsafe_get/put_user() model. I did look at it, and it requires some changes exactly *because* the _ex() functions are broken and continue, but also because the current code ends up also doing other things inside the try/catch region that you're not supposed to do in a user_access_begin/end() region . > Should that be available outside of arch/*? For that matter, would > it be a good idea to convert get_user_ex() users in arch/x86 to > unsafe_get_user()? See above: yes, it would be a good idea to convert to unsafe_get/put_user(), and no, we don't want to expose the horrid *_ex() model to other architectures. Linus