[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120513165601.GC16984@mwanda>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 19:56:01 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
patches@...aro.org, Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arve@...roid.com,
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Rebecca Schultz Zavin <rebecca@...roid.com>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] persistent_ram: Fix buffer size clamping during
writes
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 05:17:17PM -0700, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> This is a longstanding bug, almost unnoticeable when calling
> persistent_ram_write() for small buffers.
>
> But when called for large data buffers, the write routine behaves
> incorrectly, as the size may never update: instead of clamping
> the size to the maximum buffer size, buffer_size_add_clamp() returns
> an error (which is never checked by the write routine, btw).
>
> To fix this, we now use buffer_size_add() that actually clamps the
> size to the max value.
>
> Also remove buffer_size_add_clamp(), it is no longer needed.
>
Say if you did notice it, what would that look like? It's just that
something gets lost instead of written to the screen right?
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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