[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzvcU7sNa_qp6pkYau20RwL3UVDw5-dmce0EE1MX7JuKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:43:05 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>,
Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Chen Liqin <liqin.linux@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][CFT][PATCHSET v1] uaccess unification
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> IMO that's a separate series. For now I would be bloody happy if we got
> * arch-dependent asm fixes out of the way
> * everything consolidated outside of arch/*
> * arch/*/include/uaccess*.h simplified.
Sure, I agree.
At the same time, I just think that we really *should* aim for a
simpler uaccess.h in the long term, so I would prefer we not encourage
architectures to do things that simply won't matter.
> As for __copy_in_user()... I'm not sure we want to keep it in the long run -
I agree, it's probably not worth it at all.
In fact, I suspect none of the "__copy_.*_user()" versions are worth
it, and we should strive to remove them.
There aren't even that many users, and they _have_ caused security
issues when people have had some path that hasn't checked the range.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists