Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210416192413.1514419-1-eric.dumazet@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wjbvzCAhAtvG0d81W5o0-KT5PPTHhfJ5ieDFq+bGtgOYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjbvzCAhAtvG0d81W5o0-KT5PPTHhfJ5ieDFq+bGtgOYg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 09:08:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgdyusj4Sz6zVOGvD8pNiYmPik3t4-o0TXB9cTUgz_0uw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: small optimization in unsafe_copy_to_user()
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 9:03 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Really. The "unsafe" user accesses are named that way very explicitly,
> and for a very very good reason: the safety needs to be guaranteed and
> obvious within the context of those accesses. Not within some "oh,
> nobody will ever call this with a negative argument" garbage bullshit.

Side note: I'm, looking at the readdir cases that I wrote, and I have
to just say that is broken too. So "stones and glass houses" etc, and
I'll have to fix that too.

             Linus