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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210203193949.GI13819@zn.tnic> <88AA1DD6-615B-4049-B335-F2F40F85EF08@amacapital.net>
 <20210203200729.GL13819@zn.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <20210203200729.GL13819@zn.tnic>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 12:14:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrU_LTyc5oKPtO2pkKjRdPV4Pdzw4_TmcuyVUfTGfkB6jA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] x86/fault: Rename no_context() to kernelmode_fixup_or_oops()
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 12:07 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:53:03AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I feel like that would be more obfuscated =E2=80=94 then the function w=
ould
> > return without fixing anything for usermode faults, return after
> > fixing it for kernel mode faults, or oops.
>
> You practically pretty much have it already with the WARN_ON_ONCE. And
> you can make the thing return 1 to denote it was in user_mode() and 0
> otherwise. IINMSO, something like this:

Hmm.  I'm not convinced this is really much better.  Maybe it is.  Let
me think about it.  I feel like it's somehow too close to the previous
tangle where too many functions did too many different things.