Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:27:53 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, igor.stoppa@huawei.com,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] __wr_after_init: x86_64: __wr_op
Message-ID: <20181220192753.GZ10600@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20181219213338.26619-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
 <20181219213338.26619-5-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
 <20181220184917.GY10600@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <d5e8523a-3afd-d992-1af3-b329985c5ed5@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d5e8523a-3afd-d992-1af3-b329985c5ed5@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:19:15PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op"
> > function.
> 
> I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first patchset, about
> duplication. Somehow, I'm still thinking to the endgame of having
> higher-level functions, like list management.
> 
> > Here's some generic code:
> 
> thank you, I have one question, below
> 
> > void *wr_memcpy(void *dst, void *src, unsigned int len)
> > {
> > 	wr_state_t wr_state;
> > 	void *wr_poking_addr = __wr_addr(dst);
> > 
> > 	local_irq_disable();
> > 	wr_enable(&wr_state);
> > 	__wr_memcpy(wr_poking_addr, src, len);
> 
> Is __wraddr() invoked inside wm_memcpy() instead of being invoked privately
> within __wr_memcpy() because the code is generic, or is there some other
> reason?

I was assuming that __wr_addr() might be costly, and we were trying to
minimise the number of instructions executed while write-rare was enabled.