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: 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