[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200726163214.GS2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:32:14 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] quota: simplify the quotactl compat handling
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 06:04:01PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Fold the misaligned u64 workarounds into the main quotactl flow instead
> of implementing a separate compat syscall handler.
I can live with that (and drop the local quota-related stuff from
copy_in_user/compat_alloc_user_space elimination series). One question,
though:
> +static int compat_copy_fs_qfilestat(struct compat_fs_qfilestat __user *to,
> + struct fs_qfilestat *from)
> +{
> + if (copy_to_user(to, from, sizeof(*to)) ||
> + put_user(from->qfs_nextents, &to->qfs_nextents))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + return 0;
> +}
do we have any need of that put_user()? Note that you don't even call
that thing unless compat_need_64bit_alignment_fixup() is true. And AFAICS
all such cases are little-endian...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists