On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 08:32:20AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > Yes, it would make sense to put the masking in access_ok() somehow. But > > to do it properly, I think we'd first need to make access_ok() generic. > > Maybe that's do-able, but it would be a much bigger patch set. > > > > First I'd prefer to just fix x86, like my patch does. Then we could do > > an access_ok() rework. > > If you do a modified access_ok() you get to (slowly) collect all > the important paths. > No point replicating the same test. > > A lot of the access_ok() can be deleted - maybe remove some __ > from the following functions. > Or change to the variants that enable user-space accesses.
Well, yes, but that's a much bigger job which can be done later. -- Josh
