On 2/16/22 07:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann
There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
user_addr_max() value or they accept anything.
Provide one definition that works for most architecture
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 9:29 AM Stafford Horne wrote:
> > -
> > -#define access_ok(addr, size)
> > \
> > -({ \
> > - __chk_user_ptr(addr);
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
> architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
> user_addr_max() value or they accept anything.
>
> Provide one definition
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:30 AM David Laight wrote:
>
> From: Andy Lutomirski
> > Sent: 17 February 2022 19:15
> ...
> > This isn't actually optimal. On x86, TASK_SIZE_MAX is a bizarre
> > constant that has a very specific value to work around a bug^Wdesign
> > error^Wfeature of Intel CPUs. TASK
From: Andy Lutomirski
> Sent: 17 February 2022 19:15
...
> This isn't actually optimal. On x86, TASK_SIZE_MAX is a bizarre
> constant that has a very specific value to work around a bug^Wdesign
> error^Wfeature of Intel CPUs. TASK_SIZE_MAX is the maximum address at
> which userspace is permitted
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:17 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
> architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
> user_addr_max() value or they accept anything.
>
> Provide one definition that works
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 7:34 AM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > +#include
>
> Instead of the asm-generic games, shouldn't we just define access_ok in
> if not already defined by the architecture?
I tried, but couldn't actually make it work because asm/uaccess.h tends
to contain inline functions
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:15 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:19 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
> > architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
> > user_addr_
> +#include
Instead of the asm-generic games, shouldn't we just define access_ok in
if not already defined by the architecture?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:19 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
> architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
> user_addr_max() value or they accept anything.
>
> Provide one definition that wor
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:13 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> + * limit and catch all possible overflows.
> + * On architectures with separate user address space (m68k, s390, parisc,
> + * sparc64) or those without an MMU, this should always return true.
...
> +static inline int __access_ok(const void _
11 matches
Mail list logo
