linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] vfs.git part 1

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]

Date:   Sat, 08 Jul 2017 08:50:27 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev\@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git part 1

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> The copy_flock_fields() macro has the arguments in order <from, to>,
>> but all the users seem to do it the other way around.
>
> Looking more at it, I think I'd also like copy_flock_fields() to take
> pointer arguments, to match all the code around it (both
> copy_to/from_user and the memset calls.
>
> The actual order of arguments I suspect Michael's patch did better -
> make the copy_flock_fields() just match the order of memcpy() and
> copy_to/from_user(), both of which have <dest,src> order.
>
> So I think my preferred patch would be something like this, even if it
> is bigger than either.
>
> Comments? Michael, does this work for your case?

Yeah that works, as committed in your tree. Sorry for the slow reply,
our time zones don't line up all that well :)

cheers