Re: [PATCH 8/9] x86: kvm_hv_set_msr(): use __put_user() instead of 32bit __clear_user()

[Al Viro]

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 08:19:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 11:52:44AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > And I don't understand why you mention set_fs() vs access_ok(). None
> > of this code has anything that messes with set_fs(). The access_ok()
> > is garbage and shouldn't exist, and those user accesses should all use
> > the checking versions and the double underscores are wrong.
> > 
> > I have no idea why you think the double underscores could _possibly_
> > be worth defending.
> 
> I do not.  What I'm saying is that this just might be a beast different
> from *both* __... and the normal ones.  I'm not saying that this
> __put_user() (or __clear_user(), etc.) is the right primitive here.
> If anything, it's closer to the situation for (x86) copy_stack_trace().

... and no, I'm not saying that copy_stack_trace() should stay with
__get_user() either.  It feels like we are lacking primitives needed
to express that cleanly and copy_stack_trace() currently cobbles something
up out of what we have.  Which works for arch-specific code, but yes,
that kind of thing is brittle for arch-independent places like virt/kvm;
I wonder if e.g. s390 is really OK there.