Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:45:14 +0100
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remember to check return value from __copy_to_user() in cdrom_read_cdda_old()
Message-ID: <20040907104514.GT23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0409062335250.2705@dragon.hygekrogen.localhost> <20040907080223.GF6323@suse.de> <16701.32784.10441.884090@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20040907093437.GK6323@suse.de> <20040907102331.GS23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20040907103031.GP6323@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040907103031.GP6323@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1030
Lines: 18

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 12:30:31PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> it boils down to access_ok() not being sufficient on its own, and in
> which case yes we should just use copy_to_user() and kill the check
> completely as per the patch sent out.

access_ok() is just "we can trust MMU to do the right thing when dealing
with access to process address space at that address".  On platforms with
secondary address spaces (e.g. sparc) it's always true.  On something like
i386 we *could* use segments for the same purposes.  In fact, we used to
do just that - access to userland memory went with %fs as segment (thus
the names like extinct memcpy_fromfs() and surviving set_fs()).  However,
it's cheaper to do that check explicitly instead of relying on MMU.  And
that's what access_ok() does.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/