[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1275568683.2456.33.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:38:03 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] fcntl: return -EFAULT if copy_to_user fails
Le jeudi 03 juin 2010 à 21:16 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa a écrit :
> (2010/06/03 20:59), Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 2010-06-03 12:35, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> copy_to_user() returns the number of bytes remaining, but we want to
> >> return -EFAULT.
> >> ret = fcntl(fd, F_SETOWN_EX, NULL);
> >> With the original code ret would be 8 here.
> >>
> >> V2: Takuya Yoshikawa pointed out a similar issue in f_getown_ex()
> >
> > Pretty basic bug, how long has this been there?
>
> IIUC, from the beginning, when these were introduced.
Maybe copy_to_user() was changed sometime to return a partial count
instead of EFAULT ?
I do think we should have a set of helper functions, instead of
spreading special EFAULT cases in one housand places...
This is really ugly.
static inline int sec_copy_to_user(arg1, arg2, arg3)
{
int res = copy_to_user(arg1, arg2, arg3);
return (res > 0) ? -EFAULT : res;
}
--
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