From: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:40:53 +0000
> 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. Al I really like this series, especially patch #2. Sorry for taking so long to review this, I just wanted to make sure we got this right. Can you give me a pull request for just these 5 patches? Then feel free to post the next batch for review, I'm eager to see it as are others. Thanks! -- 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/
