[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49B0DE89.9000401@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:27:53 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] kmemdup_from_user(): introduce
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:04:12PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> I notice there are many places doing copy_from_user() which follows
>> kmalloc():
>>
>> dst = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!dst)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> if (copy_from_user(dst, src, len)) {
>> kfree(dst);
>> return -EFAULT
>> }
>>
>> kmemdup_from_user() is a wrapper of the above code. With this new
>> function, we don't have to write 'len' twice, which can lead to
>> typos/mistakes. It also produces smaller code.
>
> Name totally sucks, it mixes kernel idiom of allocation with purely
> userspace function.
>
I'm not good at English, and I don't know why "kernel memory duplicated
from user space" is so bad...
or memdup_user() ?
>> A qucik grep shows 250+ places where kmemdup_from_user() *may* be
>> used. I'll prepare a patchset to do this conversion.
>
> 250?
>
I just found out how many copy_from_user() following km/zalloc(), so
not all of them are replace-able.
> Let's not add wrapper for every two lines that happen to be used
> together.
>
Why not if we have good reasons? And I don't think we can call this
"happen to" if there are 250+ of them?
> BTW, can we drop strstarts() and kzfree() on the same reasoning?
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists