Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] compat_ioctl: add generic_compat_ioctl_ptrarg()

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 6:07 PM Al Viro wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:29:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > I was hoping that the _ptrarg suffix gives enough warning here, > > but maybe not. I was careful to only use it in cases that I > > checked are safe, either using only pointer ar

Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] compat_ioctl: add generic_compat_ioctl_ptrarg()

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:29:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I was hoping that the _ptrarg suffix gives enough warning here, > but maybe not. I was careful to only use it in cases that I > checked are safe, either using only pointer arguments, or > no arguments. > > What we might do for furth

Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] compat_ioctl: add generic_compat_ioctl_ptrarg()

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:07 AM Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Many drivers have ioctl() handlers that are completely compatible > > between 32-bit and 64-bit architectures, except for the argument > > that is passed down from user space and m

Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] compat_ioctl: add generic_compat_ioctl_ptrarg()

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Many drivers have ioctl() handlers that are completely compatible > between 32-bit and 64-bit architectures, except for the argument > that is passed down from user space and may have to be passed > through compat_ptr() in order to be