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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:30:00 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bcrl@...ck.org, mst@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] inet: Add skb_copy_datagram_iter From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:58:17 +0000 > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:20:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> >> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:19:08 +0000 >> >> > 1) does sparc64 access_ok() need to differ for 32bit and 64bit tasks? >> >> sparc64 will just fault no matter what kind of task it is. >> >> It is impossible for a user task to generate a reference to >> a kernel virtual address, as kernel and user accesses each >> go via a separate address space identifier. > > Sure, but why do we have access_ok() there at all? I.e. why not just have > it constant 1? Since access_ok() is in fact constant 1 on sparc64, where we use it, does it really matter? -- 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