[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEH94LgGv79e7ACzb_zF97p2iEPYFwxuQSHpoYf5_s-YMZsn0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 04:32:20 +0800
From: Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel mlist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tun: update file current position
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:45 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:08:50 +0800
>
>> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Also applied and queued up for -stable, thanks.
>
> I noticed in these two cases that that min_t() adjustment of 'ret'
> seems strange. I can't understand why it's needed.
>
> If, for example, tun_do_read() really did read more than 'len'
> bytes:
>
> 1) That would write past the end of the buffer.
>
> 2) Writing a different value to the ->ki_pos would mean
> that ->ki_pos is now inaccurate.
>
> Unless someone can explain why the min_t() is needed, we should remove
> it.
Yes, from my side, it seems to be impossible that ret is bigger than
let or total_len.
So we also remove the branch "if (ret > total_len) {...}" in xxx_rcvmsg().
If you hope to submit the patch for this, please let me know, thanks.
--
Regards,
Zhi Yong Wu
--
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