linux-kernel - Re: [resend PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Clarify UIO vs UACCESS maintainer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 13 Oct 2018 05:07:27 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [resend PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Clarify UIO vs UACCESS maintainer

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> The UIO file mask in MAINTAINERS was incorrectly directing UACCESS
> (include/linux/uio.h) patches to Greg.
> 
> Tag Al as the UACCESS maintainer as Ingo and others have explicitly
> required his ack before taking architecture patches that touch
> lib/iov_iter.c.
> 
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> ---
> I got a bounce last time I tried to send this, hopefully the situation
> has improved now.
> 
> Al, let me know if you want this entry. Alternatively we can just do the
> UIO file mask fixup by itself.

Sure, no problem, except that UACCESS refers to different things.
I'd probably call it UIOVEC, if we want a name that does refer to the
same somewhere (*BSD).  If anything, it's generalization of copyin/copyout
for non-userland destinations/sources; uaccess answer to (subset of) the
same problem would be set_fs()/get_fs() and the fewer we have left of that,
the better...