[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B73689F.5090407@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:17:03 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, hjl.tools@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch v2 4/4] ptrace: Add support for generic PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET
On 02/10/2010 11:12 AM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> Since it's just two words, most places handling struct iovec seem to just
> use two get_user() calls, which is probably more efficient.
>
> Also, here is where this function would need to be split in half for
> compat_ptrace_request() calls where it has to use struct compat_iovec.
>
>> + // I am not sure. Afaics it is OK to pass the
>> + // size which is less than n * size. If iov_len
>> + // is bigger, we can silently truncate it, or
>> + // even write the correct value back.
>
> Modifying iov_len to report how much we accessed seems good to me. If we
> do that, we should certainly allow a larger size for get, so userland can
> just use a generic large buffer before even knowing the real size. I'm not
> sure whether we should allow a smaller size, especially for set. I could
> go either way.
>
Allowing a larger size for get seems very sane. Allowing a smaller size
would be ok iff we make sure we handle corner cases right (i.e. a
partially overwritten subregister.)
-hpa
--
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