[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjSYTpTH0X8EcGGJD84tsJS62BN3tC6NfzmjvXdSkFVxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:35:45 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Aurelien Jacquiot <jacquiot.aurelien@...il.com>,
linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] coredump: Fix handling of partial writes in dump_emit()
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:28 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> After a partial write, we have to update the input buffer pointer.
Interesting. It seems this partial write case never triggers (except
for actually killing the core-dump).
Or did you find a case where it actually matters?
Your fix is obviously correct, but it also makes me go "that function
clearly never actually worked for partial writes, maybe we shouldn't
even bother?"
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists