From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:39:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: dgrp: dgrp_tty.c: Audit the return values of get/put_user() Message-Id: <20121119133913.GA11248@mwanda> List-Id: References: <1353322531-10092-1-git-send-email-gmate.amit@gmail.com> <20121119111553.GC6186@mwanda> <20121119130829.GB3275@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121119130829.GB3275@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Kumar amit mehta Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, wfp5p@virginia.edu, geert@linux-m68k.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:38:29PM +0530, Kumar amit mehta wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:15:54PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 04:25:31PM +0530, Kumar Amit Mehta wrote: > > > -- fix for missing audits for return values of get_user() and put_user(). > > > -- Remove the TIOCSSOFTCAR ioctl handling from dgrp driver. > > > > These should be done in separate commits. > > > > Are the calls to access_ok() still needed if we check get_user() and > > put_user()? > > > You are right, access_ok() would become redundant if we check get/put_user(). > Also, After sending one patch for removing TIOCSSOFTCAR ioctl handler from dgrp > driver, I realized that I should be sending two patches as patch series. Please > correct me if I'm wrong. Patch series are better, yes. But in this case it's not a big deal and should apply fine so don't bother resending. regards, dan carpenter