> On Sep 20, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:11:11PM -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
>> Since right after the user copy, we are going to
>> memset(&karg, 0, sizeof(karg)), I guess an access_ok check is enough?
>
> access_ok() is *NOT* "will copy_from_user() succeed?" Not
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:11:11PM -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
> Since right after the user copy, we are going to
> memset(&karg, 0, sizeof(karg)), I guess an access_ok check is enough?
access_ok() is *NOT* "will copy_from_user() succeed?" Not even close.
On a bunch of architectures (sparc64, for one)
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:11:11PM -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
> Since right after the user copy, we are going to
> memset(&karg, 0, sizeof(karg)), I guess an access_ok check is enough?
The right thing is to remove it entirely.
Since right after the user copy, we are going to
memset(&karg, 0, sizeof(karg)), I guess an access_ok check is enough?
Signed-off-by: Meng Xu
---
drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_ctl.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_ctl.c
b/drivers/s
4 matches
Mail list logo