Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] kernel.h: add to_user_ptr()

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 16:33 -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 15:43 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > 2016-03-17 Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > 2016-03-17 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 14:30 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > > > > This function had copies in 3 different files. Unify them in
> > > > > > kernel.h.
> > > > > This is only used by gpu/drm.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think this is a poor name for a generic function
> > > > > that would be in kernel.h.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Isn't there an include file in linux/drm that's
> > > > > appropriate for this.  Maybe drmP.h
> > > > > 
> > > > > Maybe prefix this function name with drm_ too.
> > > > No, the next patch adds a user to drivers/staging (which will be moved
> > > > to drivers/dma-buf) soon. Maybe move to a different header in
> > > > include/linux/? not sure which one.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also, there's this that might conflict:
> > > > > 
> > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:#define to_user_ptr(p)          ptr_to_compat(p)
> > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:#define to_user_ptr(p)          ((unsigned long)(p))
> > > > Right, I'll figure out how to replace these two too.
> > > The powerpc to_user_ptr has a different meaning from the one I'm adding
> > > in this patch. I propose we just rename powerpc's to_user_ptr to
> > > __to_user_ptr and leave the rest as is.
> > I think that's not a good idea, and you should really check
> > this concept with the powerpc folk (added to to:s and cc:ed)
> > 
> > If it were really added, then the function meaning is incorrect.
> > 
> > This is taking a u64, casting that to (unsigned long/uint_ptr_t),
> > then converting that to a user pointer.
> > 
> > Does that naming and use make sense on x86-32 or arm32?
> > 
> fwiw Gustavo's version of to_user_ptr() is in use on arm32 and arm64..
> Not entirely sure what doesn't make sense about it

It's a name that seems like it should be a straightforward
cast of a kernel pointer to a __user pointer like:

static inline void __user *to_user_ptr(void *p)
{
	return (void __user *)p;
}

As a static function in a single file, it's not
great, but OK, fine, it's static.

As a global function in kernel.h, it's misleading.