* [PATRCH] janitor: hermes: delete verify_area call
@ 2003-09-26 4:59 Randy.Dunlap
2003-09-29 5:29 ` David Gibson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-09-26 4:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev; +Cc: hermes, jgarzik
Hi,
Please apply to 2.6.0-test5-current.
Thanks,
--
~Randy
From: Domen Puncer <domen@coderock.org>
IMO, that verify_area wasn't needed.
linux-260-t5bk12-kj-rddunlap/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c | 4 ----
1 files changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff -puN drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c~net_wireless_orinoco_verify drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c
--- linux-260-t5bk12-kj/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c~net_wireless_orinoco_verify 2003-09-25 16:03:17.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-260-t5bk12-kj-rddunlap/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c 2003-09-25 16:03:17.000000000 -0700
@@ -3833,10 +3833,6 @@ orinoco_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, st
{ SIOCIWLASTPRIV, 0, 0, "dump_recs" },
};
- err = verify_area(VERIFY_WRITE, wrq->u.data.pointer, sizeof(privtab));
- if (err)
- break;
-
wrq->u.data.length = sizeof(privtab) / sizeof(privtab[0]);
if (copy_to_user(wrq->u.data.pointer, privtab, sizeof(privtab)))
err = -EFAULT;
_
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATRCH] janitor: hermes: delete verify_area call 2003-09-26 4:59 [PATRCH] janitor: hermes: delete verify_area call Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-09-29 5:29 ` David Gibson 2003-09-29 20:06 ` Randy.Dunlap 2003-09-30 5:15 ` David S. Miller 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: David Gibson @ 2003-09-29 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: netdev, jgarzik On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 09:59:02PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > Hi, > Please apply to 2.6.0-test5-current. > > Thanks, Sorry, can you clarify why this verify_area() is not needed? From: Domen Puncer <domen@coderock.org> IMO, that verify_area wasn't needed. linux-260-t5bk12-kj-rddunlap/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c | 4 ---- 1 files changed, 4 deletions(-) diff -puN drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c~net_wireless_orinoco_verify +drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c --- +linux-260-t5bk12-kj/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c~net_wireless_orinoco_verify +2003-09-25 16:03:17.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-260-t5bk12-kj-rddunlap/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c 2003-09-25 +16:03:17.000000000 -0700 @@ -3833,10 +3833,6 @@ orinoco_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, st { SIOCIWLASTPRIV, 0, 0, "dump_recs" }, }; - err = verify_area(VERIFY_WRITE, wrq->u.data.pointer, +sizeof(privtab)); - if (err) - break; - wrq->u.data.length = sizeof(privtab) / +sizeof(privtab[0]); if (copy_to_user(wrq->u.data.pointer, privtab, +sizeof(privtab))) err = -EFAULT; _ -- David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATRCH] janitor: hermes: delete verify_area call 2003-09-29 5:29 ` David Gibson @ 2003-09-29 20:06 ` Randy.Dunlap 2003-09-30 4:51 ` David Gibson 2003-09-30 5:15 ` David S. Miller 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-09-29 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Gibson; +Cc: netdev, jgarzik On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:29:25 +1000 David Gibson <hermes@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: | On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 09:59:02PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: | > | > Hi, | > Please apply to 2.6.0-test5-current. | > | > Thanks, | | Sorry, can you clarify why this verify_area() is not needed? Sure, I'll try to do that. There are several related reasons for it. Summary: Using verify_area() [or access_ok()] is redundant if copy*user(), get_user(), or put_user() is being used, but must (*should*) be used if __copy*user(), __get_user(), or __put_user() are being used. a. [include/asm-i386/uaccess.h] verify_area: - Obsolete, use access_ok() b. copy_*_user() already calls access_ok() to validate the user address. The __* versions of copy*user() and __get/put_user() do not use access_ok(), so checking must be done before using them. HTH. -- ~Randy | From: Domen Puncer <domen@coderock.org> | | IMO, that verify_area wasn't needed. | | linux-260-t5bk12-kj-rddunlap/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c | 4 | ---- | 1 files changed, 4 deletions(-) | | diff -puN drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c~net_wireless_orinoco_verify | +drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c | --- | +linux-260-t5bk12-kj/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c~net_wireless_orinoco_verify | +2003-09-25 16:03:17.000000000 -0700 | +++ linux-260-t5bk12-kj-rddunlap/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco.c | 2003-09-25 | +16:03:17.000000000 -0700 | @@ -3833,10 +3833,6 @@ orinoco_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, st | { SIOCIWLASTPRIV, 0, 0, "dump_recs" }, | }; | | - err = verify_area(VERIFY_WRITE, | wrq->u.data.pointer, | +sizeof(privtab)); | - if (err) | - break; | - | wrq->u.data.length = sizeof(privtab) / | +sizeof(privtab[0]); | if (copy_to_user(wrq->u.data.pointer, privtab, | +sizeof(privtab))) | err = -EFAULT; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATRCH] janitor: hermes: delete verify_area call 2003-09-29 20:06 ` Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-09-30 4:51 ` David Gibson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: David Gibson @ 2003-09-30 4:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: netdev, jgarzik On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:06:08PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:29:25 +1000 David Gibson <hermes@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > | On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 09:59:02PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > | > > | > Hi, > | > Please apply to 2.6.0-test5-current. > | > > | > Thanks, > | > | Sorry, can you clarify why this verify_area() is not needed? > > > Sure, I'll try to do that. > There are several related reasons for it. > > Summary: > Using verify_area() [or access_ok()] is redundant if copy*user(), > get_user(), or put_user() is being used, but must (*should*) be used > if __copy*user(), __get_user(), or __put_user() are being used. > > a. [include/asm-i386/uaccess.h] verify_area: - Obsolete, use access_ok() > > b. copy_*_user() already calls access_ok() to validate the user address. > The __* versions of copy*user() and __get/put_user() do not use > access_ok(), so checking must be done before using them. Ah, ok, thanks. In that case presumably the other call to verify_area() doesn't need to be there either... -- David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATRCH] janitor: hermes: delete verify_area call 2003-09-29 5:29 ` David Gibson 2003-09-29 20:06 ` Randy.Dunlap @ 2003-09-30 5:15 ` David S. Miller 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2003-09-30 5:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Gibson; +Cc: rddunlap, netdev, jgarzik On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:29:25 +1000 David Gibson <hermes@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > Sorry, can you clarify why this verify_area() is not needed? copy_{to,from}_user() and friends do the verify_area(). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-30 5:15 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-09-26 4:59 [PATRCH] janitor: hermes: delete verify_area call Randy.Dunlap 2003-09-29 5:29 ` David Gibson 2003-09-29 20:06 ` Randy.Dunlap 2003-09-30 4:51 ` David Gibson 2003-09-30 5:15 ` David S. Miller
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).