linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/itimer.c: for return value, using -EINVAL instead of -EFAULT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:16:40 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/itimer.c: for return value, using -EINVAL instead
 of -EFAULT

On 06/20/2013 03:44 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> We could do that, but that makes no sense. If we can detect it before
> copy_to_user() we can return the exactly same return value which we
> would return via copy_to_user(). That avoids to take a trap and run
> through the fixup code

I don't think "that makes no sense".

In most cases, the 'value' will not be NULL, so it is better for
performance (save one compare instruction, at least).

Also, it will make the code simpler and clearer for readers.



Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Asianux Corporation
--
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/