From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 17/20] lpfc_debugfs: get rid of pointless access_ok()
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 00:45:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200509234557.1124086-17-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200509234557.1124086-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
No, you do NOT need to "protect copy from user" that way.
Incidentally, your userland ABI stinks. I understand that you
wanted to accept "reset" and "reset\n" as equivalent, but I suspect
that accepting "reset this, you !@^!@!" had been an accident.
Nothing to do about that now - it is a userland ABI...
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_debugfs.c | 12 ------------
1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_debugfs.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_debugfs.c
index 8a6e02aa553f..5a754fb5f854 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_debugfs.c
@@ -2166,10 +2166,6 @@ lpfc_debugfs_lockstat_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
char *pbuf;
int i;
- /* Protect copy from user */
- if (!access_ok(buf, nbytes))
- return -EFAULT;
-
memset(mybuf, 0, sizeof(mybuf));
if (copy_from_user(mybuf, buf, nbytes))
@@ -2621,10 +2617,6 @@ lpfc_debugfs_multixripools_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
if (nbytes > 64)
nbytes = 64;
- /* Protect copy from user */
- if (!access_ok(buf, nbytes))
- return -EFAULT;
-
memset(mybuf, 0, sizeof(mybuf));
if (copy_from_user(mybuf, buf, nbytes))
@@ -2787,10 +2779,6 @@ lpfc_debugfs_scsistat_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
char mybuf[6] = {0};
int i;
- /* Protect copy from user */
- if (!access_ok(buf, nbytes))
- return -EFAULT;
-
if (copy_from_user(mybuf, buf, (nbytes >= sizeof(mybuf)) ?
(sizeof(mybuf) - 1) : nbytes))
return -EFAULT;
--
2.11.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-09 23:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-09 23:41 [PATCHES] uaccess simple access_ok() removals Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 01/20] dlmfs_file_write(): get rid of pointless access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 02/20] fat_dir_ioctl(): hadn't needed that access_ok() for more than a decade Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 03/20] btrfs_ioctl_send(): don't bother with access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 04/20] FIEMAP: " Al Viro
2020-05-10 7:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-13 19:02 ` Al Viro
2020-05-13 19:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-29 15:01 ` Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 05/20] tomoyo_write_control(): get rid of pointless access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-10 0:50 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-10 0:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-10 1:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2020-05-10 3:01 ` Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 06/20] n_hdlc_tty_read(): remove " Al Viro
2020-05-15 10:53 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 07/20] nvram: drop useless access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-15 10:54 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 08/20] cm4000_cs.c cmm_ioctl(): get rid of pointless access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 09/20] drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-pr.c: " Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 10/20] drivers/fpga/dfl-afu-dma-region.c: " Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 11/20] amifb: get rid of pointless access_ok() calls Al Viro
2020-05-14 13:45 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2020-05-14 14:07 ` Al Viro
2020-05-14 14:25 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2020-05-14 17:41 ` Al Viro
2020-05-14 20:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 12/20] omapfb: " Al Viro
2020-05-14 13:39 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 13/20] drivers/crypto/ccp/sev-dev.c: get rid of pointless access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 14/20] via-pmu: don't bother with access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 15/20] drm_read(): get rid of pointless access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 16/20] efi_test: " Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` Al Viro [this message]
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 18/20] usb: get rid of pointless access_ok() calls Al Viro
2020-05-15 10:53 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 19/20] hfi1: get rid of pointless access_ok() Al Viro
2020-05-09 23:45 ` [PATCH 4/4] vmci_host: " Al Viro
2020-05-15 10:53 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-05-10 0:34 ` [PATCHES] uaccess simple access_ok() removals Linus Torvalds
2020-05-10 3:27 ` Al Viro
2020-05-10 14:34 ` David Laight
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200509234557.1124086-17-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=james.smart@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).