lvs-devel
|
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:16:32PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Maybe sockptr_advance should have some safety checks and sometimes > return -EFAULT? Or you should always use the implementation where > being a kernel address is an explicit bit of sockptr_t, rather than > being implicit? I already have a patch to use access_ok to check the whole range in init_user_sockptr. |
Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr_t, Jason A. Donenfeld |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr_t, Jason A. Donenfeld |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr_t, Jason A. Donenfeld |
Next by Thread: | RE: [PATCH 12/26] netfilter: switch nf_setsockopt to sockptr_t, David Laight |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |