[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61d94f2a5563db4d6580c8385c3b93c8eeb3669a.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:28:11 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, wanghaifine@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change judgment len position
On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 10:10 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Wang Hai <wanghaifine@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:47:29 +0800
>
> > To determine whether len is less than zero, it should be put before
> > the function min_t, because the return value of min_t is not likely
> > to be less than zero.
[]
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
[]
> > @@ -3301,11 +3301,11 @@ static int do_tcp_getsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level,
> > struct net *net = sock_net(sk);
> > int val, len;
> >
> > + len = min_t(unsigned int, len, sizeof(int));
> > +
> > if (get_user(len, optlen))
> > return -EFAULT;
>
> You can't be serious?
I'm not personally taken aback by this but
there is the new Code of
Conduct to consider.
John McEnroe earned quite a bit of his
reputation as an 'enfant terrible' via a
similar statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hK1wyrrAU
Perhaps a different word choice next time in
reply to submitters of ill-considered and/or
defective patches could be useful.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists