regression from your recent change to x86's copy_user_handle_tail()

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

Linus,

while the description of commit cae2a173fe certainly makes sense, the
change itself ignores the __probe_kernel_write() code path, for which
the destination address is expected to be in kernel space but accesses
may still fault. I.e. the use of plain memset() causes
__probe_kernel_write() to oops rather than return an error. Shouldn't
the "(unsigned long)to >= TASK_SIZE_MAX" be relaxed to take the
effect of set_fs() into account?

Thanks, Jan