On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
> architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
> user_addr_max() value or they accept anything.
>
> Provide one definition
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 9:29 AM Stafford Horne wrote:
> > -
> > -#define access_ok(addr, size)
> > \
> > -({ \
> > - __chk_user_ptr(addr);
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 02:13:32PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> There are no remaining callers of set_fs(), so CONFIG_SET_FS
> can be removed globally, along with the thread_info field and
> any references to it.
>
> This turns access_ok() into a cheaper check against TA
On 2/16/22 07:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann
These two architectures implement 8-byte get_user() through
a memcpy() into a four-byte variable, which won't fit.
Use a temporary 64-bit variable instead here, and use a double
cast the way that risc-v and openrisc do to avoid comp
On 2/16/22 07:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann
On some architectures, access_ok() does not do any argument type
checking, so replacing the definition with a generic one causes
a few warnings for harmless issues that were never caught before.
Fix the ones that I found either thro
On 2/16/22 07:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann
There are many different ways that access_ok() is defined across
architectures, but in the end, they all just compare against the
user_addr_max() value or they accept anything.
Provide one definition that works for most architecture
On 2/16/22 07:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann
There are no remaining callers of set_fs(), so CONFIG_SET_FS
can be removed globally, along with the thread_info field and
any references to it.
This turns access_ok() into a cheaper check against TASK_SIZE_MAX.
With CONFIG_SET_FS
