On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:06:08PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:29:25 +1000 David Gibson
> <hermes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> | On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 09:59:02PM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> | >
> | > Hi,
> | > Please apply to 2.6.0-test5-current.
> | >
> | > Thanks,
> | Sorry, can you clarify why this verify_area() is not needed?
> Sure, I'll try to do that.
> There are several related reasons for it.
> Using verify_area() [or access_ok()] is redundant if copy*user(),
> get_user(), or put_user() is being used, but must (*should*) be used
> if __copy*user(), __get_user(), or __put_user() are being used.
> a. [include/asm-i386/uaccess.h] verify_area: - Obsolete, use access_ok()
> b. copy_*_user() already calls access_ok() to validate the user address.
> The __* versions of copy*user() and __get/put_user() do not use
> access_ok(), so checking must be done before using them.
Ah, ok, thanks. In that case presumably the other call to
verify_area() doesn't need to be there either...
David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | solution which is simple, neat and