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

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

Message-ID: <20200501213048.GO23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 22:30:48 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: open code copy_string_kernel

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 02:19:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?

Killing set_fs() would be a very good thing...