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 doin
On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 12:28 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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.
>
> Fixes: cf6e7bac6357 ("drm/i915: Add support fo
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 use copy_from_user() dire
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 access_o
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.
Fixes: cf6e7bac6357 ("drm/i915: Add support for drm syncobjs")
Cc: Jason Ekstrand
Cc: Chris Wilson
Signed-