| To: | "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Kernel/User Memory Access and Original Sin |
| From: | "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:56:04 +0100 |
| Cc: | "Linux/MIPS fnet" <linux-mips@fnet.fr>, "Linux/MIPS algor" <linux-porters@algor.co.uk>, "Linux SGI" <linux@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linuxmips@oss.sgi.com |
>__access_ok has one purpose. To verify the address range given is entirely
>sensible to feed to __copy_*_user. If you have to do handling the complex
>way (eg if your cpu design requires it) then __access_ok can just return 1
>and the __copy_*_user - inline or out of line - can do all the work.
Thanks. I think I have localized the hole in the signal handling that
would have defeated these mechanisms, though another related
failure that was also solved by the sledgehammer __access_ok
remains mysterious. I'll apply the more localized fix and repeat the
crashme experiments...
Kevin K.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Kernel/User Memory Access and Original Sin, Alan Cox |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Linux on O2?, Bastiaan . N . Veelo |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Kernel/User Memory Access and Original Sin, Alan Cox |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |