[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1101232356180.30955@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:01:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH][RFC] Check poll_select_set_timeout return value in
sys_poll
poll_select_set_timeout() may return -EINVAL if it's given invalid
arguments. In sys_poll() we don't check the return value. The way
poll_select_set_timeout() is called here currently I don't think can ever
actually fail, but it doesn't hurt to be defensive - code has a tendency
to change over time. This patch checks the return value and returns
-EINVAL just like we do elsewhere if it does fail.
What do you think? Is this just pointless overhead or actually worth it as
an "insurance policy"?
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
---
select.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/select.c b/fs/select.c
index e56560d..333d5aa 100644
--- a/fs/select.c
+++ b/fs/select.c
@@ -922,8 +922,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(poll, struct pollfd __user *, ufds, unsigned int, nfds,
if (timeout_msecs >= 0) {
to = &end_time;
- poll_select_set_timeout(to, timeout_msecs / MSEC_PER_SEC,
- NSEC_PER_MSEC * (timeout_msecs % MSEC_PER_SEC));
+ if (poll_select_set_timeout(to, timeout_msecs / MSEC_PER_SEC,
+ NSEC_PER_MSEC * (timeout_msecs % MSEC_PER_SEC)))
+ return -EINVAL;
}
ret = do_sys_poll(ufds, nfds, to);
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
--
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