linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: small optimization in unsafe_copy_to

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]

Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 15:11:49 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: small optimization in unsafe_copy_to_user()

On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 1:35 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> No, wait - we have non-NULL buf->prev_reclen, so we'll hit
> with buf->error completely ignored.  Nevermind.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I even tested that -EINTR case at one point.

Of course, it could easily have gotten broken again, so that's not a
strong argument.

That said, the "buf->err" handling has always been very confusing, and
it would be lovely to get rid of that confusion.

I don't remember why we did it that way, but I think it's because
low-level filesystems ended up changing the error that the filldir()
function returned or something like that.

         Linus