From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:34:46 -0600 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, "H. Peter Anvin" , Oleg Nesterov , Roland McGrath Subject: Re: [ 17/68] regset: Return -EFAULT, not -EIO, on host-side memory fault Message-ID: <20120309203446.GB23244@burratino> References: <20120309194409.GA2069@kroah.com> <20120309190216.344083722@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120309190216.344083722@linuxfoundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Greg KH wrote: > 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > ------------------ > > From: "H. Peter Anvin" > > commit 5189fa19a4b2b4c3bec37c3a019d446148827717 upstream. > > There is only one error code to return for a bad user-space buffer > pointer passed to a system call in the same address space as the > system call is executed, and that is EFAULT. I don't think this has the potential to cause regressions, and it certainly makes things saner, so from that point of view it looks good. But I am still wondering how it matches the following criterion: - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical. Can someone enlighten me? Part of the reason I am asking is to figure out whether the patch ought to be applied to 2.6.32.y, too. Thanks, Jonathan