| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:04:51 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> 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_ok: - Checks if a user space pointer is valid > * @type: Type of access: %VERIFY_READ or %VERIFY_WRITE. Note that > * %VERIFY_WRITE is a superset of %VERIFY_READ - if it is safe > * to write to a block, it is always safe to read from it. > * @addr: User space pointer to start of block to check > * @size: Size of block to check > */ > -Chris Probably not. It just seemed like the existing comment was insufficient after the removal of the redundant VERIFY_READ check that happened recently. -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists