[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2VQaz4rLqSeEVu4V-RJ6W3nimo=6PbVymEWAKkEQCDOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 16:24:57 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+142888ffec98ab194028@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] media: v4l2-core: ignore native time32 ioctls on 64-bit
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 4:00 PM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:43:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> v4l2_event vs. v4l2_event32 vs. v4l2_event_time32 vs.
> v4l2_event32_time32 is a bit confusing. Do I understand correctly that
> the code below runs for the non-compat path, thus native userspace
> (32-bit on 32-bit machines, 64-bit on 64-bit machines), and handles the
> case of a native userspace using a 32-bit time ? If so it indeed doesn't
> make sense for 64-bit machines.
Yes, that's correct. The way the structures are defined, we have
all four combinations of native/compat pointer and time64/time32
timestamps, but the combination of native pointer with time32
stamps only makes sense for 32-bit users.
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Thanks,
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists