From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752946AbbEKV04 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2015 17:26:56 -0400 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143]:65275 "EHLO radon.swed.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751994AbbEKV0y (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2015 17:26:54 -0400 Message-ID: <55511E99.5070806@nod.at> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 23:26:49 +0200 From: Richard Weinberger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux-Arch CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: VERIFY_READ/WRITE in uaccess.h? References: <554F288C.3000300@nod.at> <55511989.2010407@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <55511989.2010407@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 11.05.2015 um 23:05 schrieb H. Peter Anvin: > On 05/10/2015 02:44 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Hi! >> >> While cleaning up UML's uaccess code I've noticed that not a single architecture >> is using VERIFY_READ/WRITE in access_ok(). >> One exception is UML, it uses the access type in one check which is in vain anyways. >> Also asm-generic/uaccess.h drops the type parameter silently. >> >> Why do we still carry it around? >> >> Is it because we want it for some future architecture which can benefit >> from it or just because nobody cared enough to do a tree-wide cleanup? >> I fear it is the latter... ;) >> > > Or, perhaps, nobody noticed? Also possible. While we are at it, access_ok() is IMHO a horrible name. Historic? Today it is used to find out whether an address is in an architecture defined range and therefore valid. Maybe valid_address() would be a better name... Thanks, //richard