Re: copy_*_user

[AmÃrico Wang]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Xin Tong <xerox.time.tech@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am investigating copy_from_user Âand copy_to_user in linux under
> i386. These two function both take a pointer with virtual address and
> a pointer with physical address.
>
> copy_from_user calls __copy_from_user_ll and copy_to_user Âcalls
> __copy_to_user_ll. It make sense to me that __copy_to_user_ll converts
> the virtual address to physical address using the current process's
> page table.
>
[...]
> But it seems to be that __copy_from_user_ll Âis not converted the
> address at all before attempting to copy. Can someone help explain to
> me why ?
>

You missed that __copy_to_user_ll() only does that when CONFIG_X86_WP_WORKS_OK
is not defined. And there is a comment right inside __copy_to_user_ll() said:


               /*
                 * CPU does not honor the WP bit when writing
                 * from supervisory mode, and due to preemption or SMP,
                 * the page tables can change at any time.
                 * Do it manually.      Manfred <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                 */

this is why it uses kmap_atomic()+memcpy() to copy the data.

Also, all the addresses are virtual address.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/