From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:00:11 +0100 Subject: [OpenRISC] [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition In-Reply-To: References: <20220214163452.1568807-1-arnd@kernel.org> <20220214163452.1568807-5-arnd@kernel.org> Message-ID: <20220214200011.GA3786@lst.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: openrisc@lists.librecores.org On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:45:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the only > definitions are on sparc64 and x86, so it's possible that they serve a similar > purpose here, in which case changing the limit from TASK_SIZE to > TASK_SIZE_MAX is probably wrong as well. > > So either I need to revert the original definition as I did on sparc64, or > they can be removed completely. Hopefully Al or the x86 maintainers > can clarify. Looking at the x86 users I think: - valid_user_frame should go away and the caller should use get_user instead of __get_user - the one in copy_code can just go away, as there is another check in copy_from_user_nmi - copy_stack_frame should just use access_ok - as does copy_from_user_nmi but yes, having someone who actually knows this code look over it would be very helpful.