lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: sendmmsg: put_user vs __put_user
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-31 23:29    [W:0.032 / U:1.652 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site