Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 02:04:51PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > Probably not. It just seemed like the existing comment was > insufficient after the removal of the redundant VERIFY_READ check that > happened recently. That's certainly true, the remaining comment is a little cryptic. Something more

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Kees Cook
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:26:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> This clarifies the comment above the access_ok check so a missing >> VERIFY_READ doesn't alarm anyone. > > Do we really need to copy the interface documentation? > > /** > *

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:26:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This clarifies the comment above the access_ok check so a missing > VERIFY_READ doesn't alarm anyone. Do we really need to copy the interface documentation? /** * access_ok: - Checks if a user space pointer is valid * @type: Type of

[PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Kees Cook
This clarifies the comment above the access_ok check so a missing VERIFY_READ doesn't alarm anyone. Signed-off-by: Kees Cook Cc: Daniel Vetter --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c |6 +- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

[PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Kees Cook
This clarifies the comment above the access_ok check so a missing VERIFY_READ doesn't alarm anyone. Signed-off-by: Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c |6 +- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:26:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: This clarifies the comment above the access_ok check so a missing VERIFY_READ doesn't alarm anyone. Do we really need to copy the interface documentation? /** * access_ok: - Checks if a user space pointer is valid * @type: Type of

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Kees Cook
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:26:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: This clarifies the comment above the access_ok check so a missing VERIFY_READ doesn't alarm anyone. Do we really need to copy the interface documentation?

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: clarify reasoning for the access_ok call

2013-03-11 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 02:04:51PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: Probably not. It just seemed like the existing comment was insufficient after the removal of the redundant VERIFY_READ check that happened recently. That's certainly true, the remaining comment is a little cryptic. Something more like: