linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: fix access_ok() and valid_user_address() using wrong USER_PTR

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: <CAHk-=wjUWNCbq+GEvCRjBBKkRiJboGMjXMiRd5Z7tqKCyJkdtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 18:37:43 +0900
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc: "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, brauner@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, 
	jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	tglx@...utronix.de, pfalcato@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: fix access_ok() and valid_user_address() using
 wrong USER_PTR_MAX in modules

On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 at 17:57, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I would appreciate some feedback on the header split idea though. :)

I don't think it's wrong, but I don't think it buys us much either.

And it does make it harder to see what the bigger pattern is - the
code that initializes the constants is deeply intertwined with the
code that uses it, and you split it up into different files, so now
you can't see what the interdependence is...

             Linus