On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:17:07PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:46 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > As Al pointed out, they turned out to be necessary on sparc64, but the
> > > only
> > > definitions are
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 14 February 2022 20:24
> >
> > x86-64 has always(*) used TASK_SIZE_MAX for access_ok(), and the
> > get_user() assembler implementation does the same.
>
> Side note: we could just check the sign bit instead, and avoid big
> constants that way.
The cheap test for most
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> x86-64 has always(*) used TASK_SIZE_MAX for access_ok(), and the
> get_user() assembler implementation does the same.
Side note: we could just check the sign bit instead, and avoid big
constants that way.
Right now we actually have this
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:46 AM 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
> > pu
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:46 AM 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
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_SIZ
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:02 PM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:34:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > +#define __range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)(!__access_ok(addr, size))
> > +#define __chk_range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)(!__access_ok((void
> > __user *)addr,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:34:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> +#define __range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)(!__access_ok(addr, size))
> +#define __chk_range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)(!__access_ok((void
> __user *)addr, size))
Can we just kill these off insted of letting themm obsfucat
