On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:39:11AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > Hmm, this function, and the other, goes on to do: > > if (unlikely(!access_ok((void __user *)start, len))) > return 0; > > and I thought that access_ok takes in the tagged pointer? > > How about re-order it a bit? Actually.. I we reorder this we'd need to to duplicate a few things due to the zero/negative length checking. Given the feedback from Khalid I'd thus rather skip the reorder for now. If we have a good reason we could add it back, but it would be a bit involved.
