Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:41:24 +0100 (CET) | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kill access_ok() call from copy_siginfo_to_user() that we might as well avoid. |
| |
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > In kernel/signal.c::copy_siginfo_to_user() we are calling access_ok() > > unconditionally. As I see it there's no need for this since we might as > > well just call copy_to_user() instead of __copy_to_user() later on and > > then only get the overhead of the access_ok() check (inside > > copy_to_user()) > > No, the "access_ok()" is to protect the other side too, ie all the > "__put_user()" calls. > > If you remove the access_ok(), you need to also change all the > __put_user() calls to "put_user()". And then the end result will be much > worse code than it is right now. > Hmm, right, now that you point it out that's glaringly obvious - that slipped by me - sorry for the noice.
-- Jesper Juhl
- 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/
| |