linux-kernel - Re: sendmmsg: put_user vs __put

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOPLpQewA-AduBudgH5FK6Kz_=nHv6eFhGD29TkAosPTdP4ZHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:30:25 -0400
From:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sendmmsg: put_user vs __put_user

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 20:51, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> Compat processes are not able to generate virtual addresses anywhere
> near the range where the kernel resides, so the address range
> verification done by put_user() is completely superfluous and
> therefore not necessary.  The normal exception handling done by the
> access is completely sufficient.

I was more thinking about the effects of might_fault() then additional tests.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/