| 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 May 2015 23:26:49 +0200 From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org> CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Subject: Re: VERIFY_READ/WRITE in uaccess.h? Am 11.05.2015 um 23:05 schrieb H. Peter Anvin: > On 05/10/2015 02:44 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Hi! >> >> While cleaning up UML's uaccess code I've noticed that not a single architecture >> is using VERIFY_READ/WRITE in access_ok(). >> One exception is UML, it uses the access type in one check which is in vain anyways. >> Also asm-generic/uaccess.h drops the type parameter silently. >> >> Why do we still carry it around? >> >> Is it because we want it for some future architecture which can benefit >> from it or just because nobody cared enough to do a tree-wide cleanup? >> I fear it is the latter... ;) >> > > Or, perhaps, nobody noticed? Also possible. While we are at it, access_ok() is IMHO a horrible name. Historic? Today it is used to find out whether an address is in an architecture defined range and therefore valid. Maybe valid_address() would be a better name... Thanks, //richard -- 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