linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] char/mem: only use {read,write}_iter, not the old {read,write} functions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b1e7991f-b01e-b29c-954a-0d55e971840e@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 20 May 2022 08:38:35 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] char/mem: only use {read,write}_iter, not the old
 {read,write} functions

On 5/20/22 7:50 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Currently mem.c implements both the {read,write}_iter functions and the
> {read,write} functions. But with {read,write} going away at some point
> in the future, and most kernel code made to prefer {read,write}_iter,
> there's no point in keeping around the old code. Actually, this comment
> in __kernel_read() indicates that having both might be plain wrong:
> 
>         /*
>          * Also fail if ->read_iter and ->read are both wired up as that
>          * implies very convoluted semantics.
>          */
>         if (unlikely(!file->f_op->read_iter || file->f_op->read))
>                 return warn_unsupported(file, "read");

Nice, just another bit of wasted space due to not having clearly
defined iter vs non-iter.

Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>

-- 
Jens Axboe