From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933185AbdC2XnM (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:43:12 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com ([209.85.223.195]:36079 "EHLO mail-io0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932829AbdC2XnH (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:43:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170329230934.GK29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20170329055706.GH29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <3399faa9-795e-39db-42f5-7d1e10bbff9c@synopsys.com> <20170329202939.GI29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170329210322.GJ29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20170329230934.GK29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:43:05 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HX6YeNp7Cy_FA7NCTZ85dVWW2YM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][CFT][PATCHSET v1] uaccess unification To: Al Viro Cc: Vineet Gupta , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Richard Henderson , Russell King , Will Deacon , Haavard Skinnemoen , Steven Miao , Jesper Nilsson , Mark Salter , Yoshinori Sato , Richard Kuo , Tony Luck , Geert Uytterhoeven , James Hogan , Michal Simek , David Howells , Ley Foon Tan , Jonas Bonn , Helge Deller , Martin Schwidefsky , Ralf Baechle , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Chen Liqin , "David S. Miller" , Chris Metcalf , Richard Weinberger , Guan Xuetao , Thomas Gleixner , Chris Zankel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > IMO that's a separate series. For now I would be bloody happy if we got > * arch-dependent asm fixes out of the way > * everything consolidated outside of arch/* > * arch/*/include/uaccess*.h simplified. Sure, I agree. At the same time, I just think that we really *should* aim for a simpler uaccess.h in the long term, so I would prefer we not encourage architectures to do things that simply won't matter. > As for __copy_in_user()... I'm not sure we want to keep it in the long run - I agree, it's probably not worth it at all. In fact, I suspect none of the "__copy_.*_user()" versions are worth it, and we should strive to remove them. There aren't even that many users, and they _have_ caused security issues when people have had some path that hasn't checked the range. Linus