[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: AUDIT: copy_from_user is a deathtrap.

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Pavel makes a reasonable point that copy_*_user may elect
> to copy the data in something other than strictly ascending
> user virtual addresses. In which case it's not possible to return
> a sane "how much was copied" number.

I don't agree that that is true.

Do you have _any_ reasonable implementation taht would do that_

> And copy_*_user is buggy at present: it doesn't correctly handle
> the case where the source and destination of the copy are overlapping
> in the same physical page. Example code below.

So we have memcpy() semantics for read()/write(), big deal.

The same way you aren't supposed to use memcpy() for overlapping areas,
you're not supposed to read/write into such areas, for all the same

> One fix is to
> do the copy with descending addresses if src<dest or whatever.

No. That wouldn't work anyway, because the addresses are totally different

> But then how to return the number of bytes??

The way we do now, which is the CORRECT way.

Stop this idiocy.

The current interface is quite well-defined, and has good semantics. Every
single argument against it has been totally bogus, with no redeeming


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 13:26    [W:0.124 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site