[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: sendmmsg: put_user vs __put_user
From:       David Miller <davem () davemloft ! net>
Date:       2012-03-31 21:27:10
Message-ID: 20120331.172710.540592519617177028.davem () davemloft ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:30:25 -0400

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 20:51, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>> Compat processes are not able to generate virtual addresses anywhere
>> near the range where the kernel resides, so the address range
>> verification done by put_user() is completely superfluous and
>> therefore not necessary.  The normal exception handling done by the
>> access is completely sufficient.
> 
> I was more thinking about the effects of might_fault() then additional tests.

This is very clearly in a context where locks are not held and sleeping
would be fine, so I don't see any value in that either.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]