[PATCH RFC PKS/PMEM 57/58] nvdimm/pmem: Stray access protection for pmem->virt_addr
ira.weiny at intel.com
Mon Oct 12 05:52:19 UTC 2020
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 07:53:07PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 10/9/20 12:50 PM, ira.weiny at intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com>
> > The pmem driver uses a cached virtual address to access its memory
> > directly. Because the nvdimm driver is well aware of the special
> > protections it has mapped memory with, we call dev_access_[en|dis]able()
> > around the direct pmem->virt_addr (pmem_addr) usage instead of the
> > unnecessary overhead of trying to get a page to kmap.
> > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
> > index fab29b514372..e4dc1ae990fc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
> > @@ -148,7 +148,9 @@ static blk_status_t pmem_do_read(struct pmem_device *pmem,
> > if (unlikely(is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, sector, len)))
> > return BLK_STS_IOERR;
> > + dev_access_enable(false);
> > rc = read_pmem(page, page_off, pmem_addr, len);
> > + dev_access_disable(false);
> Hi Ira!
> The APIs should be tweaked to use a symbol (GLOBAL, PER_THREAD), instead of
> true/false. Try reading the above and you'll see that it sounds like it's
> doing the opposite of what it is ("enable_this(false)" sounds like a clumsy
> API design to *disable*, right?). And there is no hint about the scope.
> And it *could* be so much more readable like this:
I'll think about the flag name. I'm not liking 'this thread'.
More information about the devel