[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHP4M8VjsZqncVKjaLqE0Hb0b5pia7qo6Vz0hHnBUcbJm1fNeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 15:02:52 +0530
From: Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, kernel@...il.dk,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: vt: keyboard: do not copy an extra-byte in copy_to_user
> >
> > That's right Pavel.
> > Every function must work correctly as it "advertises", instead of
> > relying on "chancy correctness" of the calls leading to the method.
>
> That is not how the kernel works, sorry. Otherwise every function would
> have to always verify all parameters passed to them, causing slow downs
> and redundant checks everywhere.
>
Hmm, agreed. Every cycle saved in the kernel is performance gained.
That's why, the RFC for strlscpy [1] makes all the more sense, as it
would save cpu cycles by removing the requirement to check the
return-value for overflows/underflows (including the "issue" I am
trying to address in this particular thread, and which actually lead
to the RFC for strlscpy].
P.S. :
I am not an egoistic person, who wants to get into unnecessary fights
just to upheld one's ego.
All I am trying is to suggest improvements, that
* make things faster.
* keeps code to as minimum as possible.
* makes developers' lives as comfortable as possible.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/CAHP4M8WnLA0780yN+bpuuCtir+DLJRxe0atAiLbZO0bTGf6J-Q@mail.gmail.com/T/#m4a3f524eefe283a42430905fa4c0dfc2c37b2819
Thanks and Regards,
Ajay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists