linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 11

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170706201826.GW10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2017 21:18:26 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 11

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:45:36PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> +   if (unlikely(!check_copy_size(addr, bytes, false)))
> +       return false;
> +   else
> +       return _copy_from_iter_full(addr, bytes, i);
> 
> Can these be rewritten to avoid the double-negative?

Matter of taste - I've no strong preferences here.

> +   might_fault();
> 
> Should this be might_sleep()? Just from reading the patch it looked
> like you were adding might_sleep()s in the other cases.

D'oh - shouldn't have written that pull request message before the
first cup of coffee...  might_sleep() it is, of course.