[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <847a5160e4e64a82962dc1531cd52e11@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 14:34:04 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Al Viro' <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCHES] uaccess simple access_ok() removals
From: Al Viro
> Sent: 10 May 2020 00:41
>
> One of the uaccess-related branches; this one is just the
> cases when access_ok() calls are trivially pointless - the address
> in question gets fed only to primitives that do access_ok() checks
> themselves.
There is also the check in rw_copy_check_uvector() that should
always be replicated by the copy_to/from_user() in _copy_to/from_iter().
And the strange call to rw_copy_check_uvector() in mm/process_vm_access.c
which carefully avoids the access_ok() check for the target process.
I did a quick look, but failed to see an obvious check further
down the call path.
The code is doing a read/write from another process, not sure when it
is used - not by gdb.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists