[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+v9ma5rwhtPqtJKzve5q5G_m9VQkAUqJ38VnDFPpvGYw@mail.gmail.com>
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