linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: open code copy_string

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20200501141903.5f7b1f81fdd38ae372d91f0e@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 14:19:03 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: open code copy_string_kernel

On Fri,  1 May 2020 12:41:05 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:

> Currently copy_string_kernel is just a wrapper around copy_strings that
> simplifies the calling conventions and uses set_fs to allow passing a
> kernel pointer.  But due to the fact the we only need to handle a single
> kernel argument pointer, the logic can be sigificantly simplified while
> getting rid of the set_fs.
> 

I don't get why this is better?  copy_strings() is still there and
won't be going away - what's wrong with simply reusing it in this
fashion?

I guess set_fs() is a bit hacky, but there's the benefit of not having
to maintain two largely similar bits of code?