[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1261984256.31031.21.camel@wall-e>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:10:56 +0100
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [3/6] kfifo: Sanitize *_user error handling
Am Montag, den 28.12.2009, 00:34 +0100 schrieb Andi Kleen:
> > I don't like this idea. kfifo_from_user and kfifo_to_user should have
> > the same semantics as copy_from_user and copy_to_user.
>
> Maybe they should have, but the big difference is that the source
> FIFO might not have enough data. And both conditions need
> to be reported, but not mixed together.
>
> The actual reporting of the unused length is not
> too useful anyways. It's only used very rarely for real
> c*u(), and these cases are usually misdesigned interfaces.
>
> > > I didn't fully adapt the weird "record" variants, those seem
> > > to be unused anyways and were rather messy (should they be just removed?)
> > >
> >
> > Believe it or not, it will be used in future.
>
> Normally in Linux code is only added when it's actually used.
> Otherwise it'll bitrot anyways.
>
I know a lot of places and structures inside the kernel where it is not
this case.
Stefani
--
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