Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 13:50:49 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: open code copy_string_kernel
Message-ID: <20200501125049.GL23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20200501104105.2621149-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20200501104105.2621149-3-hch@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200501104105.2621149-3-hch@lst.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 12:41:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Currently copy_string_kernel is just a wrapper around copy_strings that
> simplifies the calling conventions and uses set_fs to allow passing a
> kernel pointer.  But due to the fact the we only need to handle a single
> kernel argument pointer, the logic can be sigificantly simplified while
> getting rid of the set_fs.

I can live with that...  BTW, why do we bother with flush_cache_page() (by
way of get_arg_page()) here and in copy_strings()?  How could *anything*
have accessed that page by its address in new mm - what are we trying to
flush here?