Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 02:04:51PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > Probably not. It just seemed like the existing comment was > insufficient after the removal of the redundant VERIFY_READ check that > happened recently. That's certainly true, the remaining comment is a little cryptic. Something more lik

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Kees Cook
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:26:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> This clarifies the comment above the access_ok check so a missing >> VERIFY_READ doesn't alarm anyone. > > Do we really need to copy the interface documentation? > > /** > * access

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:26:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This clarifies the comment above the access_ok check so a missing > VERIFY_READ doesn't alarm anyone. Do we really need to copy the interface documentation? /** * access_ok: - Checks if a user space pointer is valid * @type: Type of a