On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:45:36PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > + if (unlikely(!check_copy_size(addr, bytes, false))) > + return false; > + else > + return _copy_from_iter_full(addr, bytes, i); > > Can these be rewritten to avoid the double-negative? Matter of taste - I've no strong preferences here. > + might_fault(); > > Should this be might_sleep()? Just from reading the patch it looked > like you were adding might_sleep()s in the other cases. D'oh - shouldn't have written that pull request message before the first cup of coffee... might_sleep() it is, of course.
