On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:45:36PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > + if (unlikely(!check_copy_size(addr, bytes, false))) > > + return false; > > + else > > + return _copy_from_iter_full(addr, bytes, i); > > > > Can these be rewritten to avoid the double-negative? > > Matter of taste - I've no strong preferences here. > > > + might_fault(); > > > > Should this be might_sleep()? Just from reading the patch it looked > > like you were adding might_sleep()s in the other cases. > > D'oh - shouldn't have written that pull request message before the > first cup of coffee... might_sleep() it is, of course.
Hrm... Said that, might_sleep() doesn't check one thing might_fault() does - the #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) if (current->mm) might_lock_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); #endif thing. Let me think a bit...