[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2s3SLw7qehipMCP2m4TG+S089nBiqFfY3c7M2qjVTHWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:42:04 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/spufs: fix copy_to_user while atomic
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:33 AM Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Christoph,
>
> > And another one that should go on top of this one to address Al's other
> > compaint:
>
> Yeah, I was pondering that one. The access_ok() is kinda redundant, but
> it does avoid forcing a SPU context save on those errors.
>
> However, it's not like we really need to optimise for the case of
> invalid addresses from userspace. So, I'll include this change in the
> submission to Michael's tree. Arnd - let me know if you have any
> objections.
Sounds good. A lot of the access_ok() checks in the kernel are redundant
or wrong, I think it makes a lot of sense to remove these.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists