On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> And some "handle_mm_fault would BUG_ON()" comment is just bogus. It's
> not handle_mm_fault()'s case that you called it without checking
> proper permissions.
Side note: as to why handle_mm_fault() doesn't just do things itself,
there's a historical situation where we used to let people do things
in ptrace() that they couldn't do directly, and punch through
protections (and turn shared read-only pages into a dirty private
page).
So the permissions checking was up to the caller, because some callers
could do things that other callers could not.
I *think* we have gotten rid of all those cases, and I guess we could
consider just making handle_mm_fault() itself stricter. But that's the
historical background on why callers need to check this.
Adding linux-mm to the cc, to see if anybody there has some comments
wrt just moving all the EFAULT handling into handle_mm_fault() and
relaxing the caller requirements.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>