[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wicvws38JqzVF6oNEZ0jGzP6RecR6yAGtyzX3AkoJ321g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 16:06:19 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: mst@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
bijan.mottahedeh@...cle.com, gedwards@....com, joe@...ches.com,
lenaic@...ard.fr, liang.z.li@...el.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
mhocko@...e.com, stefanha@...hat.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PULL] vhost: cleanups and fixes
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 4:00 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> + memset(&rsp, 0, sizeof(rsp));
> + rsp.response = VIRTIO_SCSI_S_FUNCTION_REJECTED;
> + resp = vq->iov[out].iov_base;
> + ret = __copy_to_user(resp, &rsp, sizeof(rsp));
>
> Is it actually safe to trust that iov_base has passed an earlier
> access_ok() check here? Why not just use copy_to_user() instead?
Good point.
We really should have removed those double-underscore things ages ago.
Also, apart from the address, what about the size? Wouldn't it be
better to use copy_to_iter() rather than implement it badly by hand?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists