[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180720054300.GA26447@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 07:43:00 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Springer <rspringer@...gle.com>,
John Joseph <jnjoseph@...gle.com>,
Ben Chan <benchan@...omium.org>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Zhongze Hu <frankhu@...omium.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Simon Que <sque@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/32] staging: gasket: annotate ioctl arg with __user
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:44:53PM -0700, Todd Poynor wrote:
> >> /* Type of the ioctl permissions check callback. See below. */
> >> typedef int (*gasket_ioctl_permissions_cb_t)(
> >> - struct file *filp, uint cmd, ulong arg);
> >> + struct file *filp, uint cmd, void __user *arg);
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Device type descriptor.
> >> @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ struct gasket_driver_desc {
> >> * return -EINVAL. Should return an error status (either -EINVAL or
> >> * the error result of the ioctl being handled).
> >> */
> >> - long (*ioctl_handler_cb)(struct file *filp, uint cmd, ulong arg);
> >> + long (*ioctl_handler_cb)(struct file *filp, uint cmd, void __user *arg);
> >
> > Why are you not using the typedef above?
>
> There's a typedef for the permissions check callback, but not for the
> handler callback. It's a bit confusing, so I tried adding a typedef
> for the handler, but now checkpatch is spanking me for adding new
> typedefs -- maybe I should drop the existing typedef?
No, typedefs for function pointers is just fine, checkpatch should not
be complaining about that. And even if it is, it's just a guideline,
not a hard rule that you have to abide by everything it says :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists