Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:34:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> +#define __range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)	(!__access_ok(addr, size))
> +#define __chk_range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)	(!__access_ok((void __user *)addr, size))

Can we just kill these off insted of letting themm obsfucate the code?



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux