linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] perf_counter: rework ioctl()s

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <18953.5533.398597.677737@drongo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 16:22:21 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] perf_counter: rework ioctl()s

Peter Zijlstra writes:

> Hmm, are you saying that the 3rd argument to unlocked_ioctl is actually
> (void __user *) instead of unsigned long?

He's saying (correctly) that using _IOR or _IOW implies that the ioctl
is going to read or write the memory location pointed to by the 3rd
argument to unlocked_ioctl.  If the 3rd argument is just a number, not
an address, I believe you should use _IO.

Paul.
--
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/