[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjectregression from your recent change to x86's copy_user_handle_tail()

while the description of commit cae2a173fe certainly makes sense, the
change itself ignores the __probe_kernel_write() code path, for which
the destination address is expected to be in kernel space but accesses
may still fault. I.e. the use of plain memset() causes
__probe_kernel_write() to oops rather than return an error. Shouldn't
the "(unsigned long)to >= TASK_SIZE_MAX" be relaxed to take the
effect of set_fs() into account?

Thanks, Jan

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-22 08:41    [W:0.567 / U:4.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site