On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:57, Artur Grabowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:14, Miod Vallat wrote:
Replace with memcpy.
>>> Vetoed.
> Don't do it.
You two are always spoiling all the fun!
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:14, Miod Vallat wrote:
>>> The only caller of kcopy is uiomove. There is no way a function like
>>> this can ever work. If you need to rely on your copy function to save
>>> you from pointers outside the address space
> > The only caller of kcopy is uiomove. There is no way a function like
> > this can ever work. If you need to rely on your copy function to save
> > you from pointers outside the address space, it means you don't know
> > what garbage you're passing it. Meaning you may well be passing it
> > poin
> The only caller of kcopy is uiomove. There is no way a function like
> this can ever work. If you need to rely on your copy function to save
> you from pointers outside the address space, it means you don't know
> what garbage you're passing it. Meaning you may well be passing it
> pointers insid
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:14, Miod Vallat wrote:
>> The only caller of kcopy is uiomove. There is no way a function like
>> this can ever work. If you need to rely on your copy function to save
>> you from pointers outside the address space, it means you don't know
>> what garbage you're passing i
inside the address space, but to something unexpected, which
you will then shit on.
Replace with memcpy.
Not shown: the 200 line diff to remove kcopy from sparc64 locore.s.
Index: kern/kern_subr.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/ker
