[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875y75yu7u.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:07:17 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 14/45] posix-timers: Consolidate interval retrieval
On Fri, Jun 30 2023 at 13:25, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:47:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 28 2023 at 15:08, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>
>> > Le Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 04:37:40PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> >> There is no point to collect the current interval in the posix clock
>> >> specific settime() and gettime() callbacks. Just do it right in the common
>> >> code.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> >
>> > The only difference I see is that we now return the old interval
>> > even if the target is reaped, which probably doesn't matter anyway.
>>
>> But we don't return it to user space because ret != 0 in that case.
>
> In the case of ->set yes but in the case of ->get there is no error
> handling.
SYSCALL_DEFINE2(timer_gettime, timer_t, timer_id,
struct __kernel_itimerspec __user *, setting)
{
struct itimerspec64 cur_setting;
int ret = do_timer_gettime(timer_id, &cur_setting);
if (!ret) {
if (put_itimerspec64(&cur_setting, setting))
How exactly does this end up being copied to user space if ret != 0?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists