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
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?
>
> /**
> *
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
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
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(-)
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
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?
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:
8 matches
Mail list logo