History log of /openbmc/linux/arch/x86/lib/copy_user_uncached_64.S (Results 1 – 1 of 1)
Revision (<<< Hide revision tags) (Show revision tags >>>) Date Author Comments
Revision tags: v6.6.25, v6.6.24, v6.6.23, v6.6.16, v6.6.15, v6.6.14, v6.6.13, v6.6.12, v6.6.11, v6.6.10, v6.6.9, v6.6.8, v6.6.7, v6.6.6, v6.6.5, v6.6.4, v6.6.3, v6.6.2, v6.5.11, v6.6.1, v6.5.10, v6.6, v6.5.9, v6.5.8, v6.5.7, v6.5.6, v6.5.5, v6.5.4, v6.5.3, v6.5.2, v6.1.51, v6.5.1, v6.1.50, v6.5, v6.1.49, v6.1.48, v6.1.46, v6.1.45, v6.1.44, v6.1.43, v6.1.42, v6.1.41, v6.1.40, v6.1.39, v6.1.38, v6.1.37, v6.1.36, v6.4, v6.1.35, v6.1.34, v6.1.33, v6.1.32, v6.1.31, v6.1.30, v6.1.29, v6.1.28, v6.1.27, v6.1.26, v6.3
# 034ff37d 20-Apr-2023 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

x86: rewrite '__copy_user_nocache' function

I didn't really want to do this, but as part of all the other changes to
the user copy loops, I've been looking at this horror.

I tried to clean it up mu

x86: rewrite '__copy_user_nocache' function

I didn't really want to do this, but as part of all the other changes to
the user copy loops, I've been looking at this horror.

I tried to clean it up multiple times, but every time I just found more
problems, and the way it's written, it's just too hard to fix them.

For example, the code is written to do quad-word alignment, and will use
regular byte accesses to get to that point. That's fairly simple, but
it means that any initial 8-byte alignment will be done with cached
copies.

However, the code then is very careful to do any 4-byte _tail_ accesses
using an uncached 4-byte write, and that was claimed to be relevant in
commit a82eee742452 ("x86/uaccess/64: Handle the caching of 4-byte
nocache copies properly in __copy_user_nocache()").

So if you do a 4-byte copy using that function, it carefully uses a
4-byte 'movnti' for the destination. But if you were to do a 12-byte
copy that is 4-byte aligned, it would _not_ do a 4-byte 'movnti'
followed by a 8-byte 'movnti' to keep it all uncached.

Instead, it would align the destination to 8 bytes using a
byte-at-a-time loop, and then do a 8-byte 'movnti' for the final 8
bytes.

The main caller that cares is __copy_user_flushcache(), which knows
about this insanity, and has odd cases for it all. But I just can't
deal with looking at this kind of "it does one case right, and another
related case entirely wrong".

And the code really wasn't fixable without hard drugs, which I try to
avoid.

So instead, rewrite it in a form that hopefully not only gets this
right, but is a bit more maintainable. Knock wood.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

show more ...