linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] let kernfs_name_locked & kernfs_name return size

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

Message-ID: <20160210165314.GA27721@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:53:14 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...lbox.org>
Cc:	tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] let kernfs_name_locked & kernfs_name return size_t

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 05:18:59PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> They return the length of kn->parent or kn->name and should be aligned with
> kernfs_path_len which also returns size_t.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...lbox.org>
> ---
>  fs/kernfs/dir.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/kernfs/dir.c b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> index 742bf4a..a3553b8 100644
> --- a/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> +++ b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static bool kernfs_lockdep(struct kernfs_node *kn)
>  #endif
>  }
>  
> -static int kernfs_name_locked(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf, size_t buflen)
> +static size_t kernfs_name_locked(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf, size_t buflen)
>  {
>  	return strlcpy(buf, kn->parent ? kn->name : "/", buflen);
>  }
> @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static char * __must_check kernfs_path_locked(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf,
>   *
>   * This function can be called from any context.
>   */
> -int kernfs_name(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf, size_t buflen)
> +size_t kernfs_name(struct kernfs_node *kn, char *buf, size_t buflen)
>  {
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	int ret;

Now if only you had test built this patch :(

Please be more careful, it just makes maintainers grumpy and annoyed
when you do that...