On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 08:47:45AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > I do have a patch doing just that; the question is what to do with > csum-and-copy > primitives. Originally I planned to simply strip those access_ok() from those > (both the explicit calls and use of copy_from_user() where we ought to use > __copy_from_user(), etc.), but that's not nice to potential out-of-tree > callers > of those suckers. If any of those exist and manage to cope with the wonderful > calling conventions, that is. As it is, we have the total of 4 callers of > csum_and_copy_from_user() and 2 callers of csum_and_copy_to_user(), all in > networking code. Do we care about potential out-of-tree users existing and > getting screwed by such change? Davem, Linus?
FWIW, the beginning of series in question follows; removal of those access_ok() is 3/5. The series is longer than that (see vfs.git#iov_iter-net for a bit more, and there's more stuff in local queue still too much in flux to push them out), but all the stuff relevant to validating iovecs on sendmsg/recvmsg and getting rid of excessive access_ok() is in the first 5 commits. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
