On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 05:38:31PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 04:29:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:14:16PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 05:57:12AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > > > > OK... BTW, do you agree that the use of access_ok() in > > > > drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c:n_hdlc_tty_read() is wrong? It's used as an early > > > > cutoff, so we don't bother waiting if user has passed an obviously bogus > > > > address. copy_to_user() is used for actual copying there... > > > > > > Yes, it's wrong, and not needed. I'll go rip it out unless you want to? > > > > I'll throw it into misc queue for now; it has no prereqs and nothing is going > > to depend upon it. > > Great, thanks. > > > While looking for more of the same pattern: usb_device_read(). Frankly, > > usb_device_dump() calling conventions look ugly - it smells like it > > would be much happier as seq_file. Iterator would take some massage, > > but that seems to be doable. Anyway, that's a separate story... > > That's just a debugfs file, and yes, it should be moved to seq_file. I > think I tried it a long time ago, but given it's just a debugging thing, > I gave up as it wasn't worth it. > > But yes, the access_ok() there also seems odd, and should be dropped. I'm almost tempted to keep it there as a reminder/grep fodder ;-) Seriously, though, it might be useful to have a way of marking the places in need of gentle repair of retrocranial inversions _without_ attracting the "checkpatch warning of the week" crowd...
