From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 21:18:26 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 11
Message-ID: <20170706201826.GW10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20170706091256.GN10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAGXu5jLxAB_D=Jzc7xDKUX3gXP+UivZyXsca3Z0Hiwb5GrVnHQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLxAB_D=Jzc7xDKUX3gXP+UivZyXsca3Z0Hiwb5GrVnHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:45:36PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> +   if (unlikely(!check_copy_size(addr, bytes, false)))
> +       return false;
> +   else
> +       return _copy_from_iter_full(addr, bytes, i);
> 
> Can these be rewritten to avoid the double-negative?

Matter of taste - I've no strong preferences here.

> +   might_fault();
> 
> Should this be might_sleep()? Just from reading the patch it looked
> like you were adding might_sleep()s in the other cases.

D'oh - shouldn't have written that pull request message before the
first cup of coffee...  might_sleep() it is, of course.