netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4] inet: Add skb_copy_datagram

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: <20141110.023000.1275181784917275552.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:30:00 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bcrl@...ck.org, mst@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] inet: Add skb_copy_datagram_iter

From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:58:17 +0000

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:20:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
>> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:19:08 +0000
>> 
>> > 1) does sparc64 access_ok() need to differ for 32bit and 64bit tasks?
>> 
>> sparc64 will just fault no matter what kind of task it is.
>> 
>> It is impossible for a user task to generate a reference to
>> a kernel virtual address, as kernel and user accesses each
>> go via a separate address space identifier.
> 
> Sure, but why do we have access_ok() there at all?  I.e. why not just have
> it constant 1?

Since access_ok() is in fact constant 1 on sparc64, where we use it,
does it really matter?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html