Re: [PATCH 05/20] tomoyo_write_control(): get rid of pointless access_ok()

2020-05-09 Thread Al Viro
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 05:57:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 5:51 PM Tetsuo Handa > wrote: > > > > I think that this access_ok() check helps reducing partial writes (either > > "whole amount was processed" or "not processed at all" unless -ENOMEM). > > No it doesn't. >

Re: [PATCH 05/20] tomoyo_write_control(): get rid of pointless access_ok()

2020-05-09 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2020/05/10 9:57, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 5:51 PM Tetsuo Handa > wrote: >> >> I think that this access_ok() check helps reducing partial writes (either >> "whole amount was processed" or "not processed at all" unless -ENOMEM). > > No it doesn't. > > "access_ok()" only ch

Re: [PATCH 05/20] tomoyo_write_control(): get rid of pointless access_ok()

2020-05-09 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 5:51 PM Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > I think that this access_ok() check helps reducing partial writes (either > "whole amount was processed" or "not processed at all" unless -ENOMEM). No it doesn't. "access_ok()" only checks the range being a valid user address range. It does

Re: [PATCH 05/20] tomoyo_write_control(): get rid of pointless access_ok()

2020-05-09 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Hello, Al. I think that this access_ok() check helps reducing partial writes (either "whole amount was processed" or "not processed at all" unless -ENOMEM). Do you think that such attempt is pointless? Then, please go ahead... On 2020/05/10 8:45, Al Viro wrote: > From: Al Viro > > address is pa

[PATCH 05/20] tomoyo_write_control(): get rid of pointless access_ok()

2020-05-09 Thread Al Viro
From: Al Viro address is passed only to get_user() Signed-off-by: Al Viro --- security/tomoyo/common.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/security/tomoyo/common.c b/security/tomoyo/common.c index 1b467381986f..f93f8acd05f7 100644 --- a/security/tomoyo/common.c +++ b/security/