[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.049 / U:1.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site