From: Kees Cook
> Sent: 06 December 2017 20:29
>
> There's no good reason to separate the access_ok() from the copy,
> especially since the access_ok() size is hard-coded instead of using
> sizeof(). Instead, just use copy_from_user() directly.
Looks like an optimisation to save doing the
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Kees Cook
>> Sent: 06 December 2017 20:29
>>
>> There's no good reason to separate the access_ok() from the copy,
>> especially since the access_ok() size is hard-coded instead of using
>> sizeof(). Instead, just
From: Kees Cook
> Sent: 08 December 2017 21:10
> >> There's no good reason to separate the access_ok() from the copy,
> >> especially since the access_ok() size is hard-coded instead of using
> >> sizeof(). Instead, just use copy_from_user() directly.
> >
> > Looks like an optimisation to save