Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 10:01:26 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm for 6.4
Message-ID: <20230503080126.GA1676736@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230427225647.1101172-1-dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
 <CAHk-=wgrdOm8RwO+u8bydrbgs0wXJV_9mBYAtzX9d9hEY7a25A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiHvdgbLxayyCsRU45JnKCZkCOpEJPfOvE3eYCnGjVcSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230429003822.n3mglslg666j3npp@box.shutemov.name>
 <641a9348-a052-6bb5-e6c7-64acb6405328@intel.com>
 <CAHk-=wgnGoj8qZg3SRh1Z1-mU=b3ryydXZykUuarnrAn6LuHBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgN=GY2A0htYQQRmPaLCorWnFatY_XO0X2w_m9xXQDcPA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgN=GY2A0htYQQRmPaLCorWnFatY_XO0X2w_m9xXQDcPA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 01:14:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:00 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I guess it also wouldn't matter as much either if we hid it in a helper
> > > like the attached patch and I didn't have to read it twice. ;)
> >
> > Yeah, I think that's a good solution.
> 
> Hmm. And as I was rebasing the patch to fix up my patch, I realized
> that the current -git top-of-tree state is actually broken.
> 
> That
> 
>   #define access_ok(addr, size)                                           \
>   ({                                                                      \
>           WARN_ON_IN_IRQ();                                               \
>           likely(__access_ok(untagged_addr(addr), size));                 \
>   })
> 
> is actually *wrong* in two ways.
> 
> Now, in my original patch, I added a comment about how that
> "WARN_ON_IN_IRQ()" is bogus and this shouldn't be x86-specific at all.
> 
> I ended up going back in time to see why it was added, and I think it
> was added because we used to access 'current' in access_ok(), due to
> it using that user_addr_max() thing:
> 
>         likely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max()));
> 
> but that was all removed by the set_fs() removal by Christoph Hellwig.

So I had a poke around, trying to figure out where it came from, and
yes. Commit ae31fe51a3cc ("perf/x86: Restore TASK_SIZE check on frame
pointer") is the reason that WARN_ON_IN_IRQ() thing got added.