Re: [patches][RFC] situation with csum_and_copy_... API

[David Miller]

From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:40:53 +0000

> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 08:47:45AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
>> I do have a patch doing just that; the question is what to do with csum-and-copy
>> primitives.  Originally I planned to simply strip those access_ok() from those
>> (both the explicit calls and use of copy_from_user() where we ought to use
>> __copy_from_user(), etc.), but that's not nice to potential out-of-tree callers
>> of those suckers.  If any of those exist and manage to cope with the wonderful
>> calling conventions, that is.  As it is, we have the total of 4 callers of
>> csum_and_copy_from_user() and 2 callers of csum_and_copy_to_user(), all in
>> networking code.  Do we care about potential out-of-tree users existing and
>> getting screwed by such change?  Davem, Linus?
> 
> FWIW, the beginning of series in question follows; removal of those
> access_ok() is 3/5.  The series is longer than that (see vfs.git#iov_iter-net
> for a bit more, and there's more stuff in local queue still too much in flux
> to push them out), but all the stuff relevant to validating iovecs on
> sendmsg/recvmsg and getting rid of excessive access_ok() is in the first 5
> commits.

Al I really like this series, especially patch #2.

Sorry for taking so long to review this, I just wanted to make sure we
got this right.

Can you give me a pull request for just these 5 patches?  Then feel free
to post the next batch for review, I'm eager to see it as are others.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/