linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_PUT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 20:53:34 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Elizabeth Figura" <zfigura@...eweavers.com>,
 "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Cc: wine-devel@...ehq.org,
 André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>,
 "Wolfram Sang" <wsa@...nel.org>, "Arkadiusz Hiler" <ahiler@...eweavers.com>,
 "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] ntsync: Introduce NTSYNC_IOC_PUT_MUTEX.

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 19:03, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 January 2024 01:42:19 CST Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 01:40, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
>> > @@ -738,6 +803,8 @@ static long ntsync_char_ioctl(struct file *file, 
>> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h b/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h
>> > index 26d1b3d4847f..2e44e7e77776 100644
>> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h
>> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ntsync.h
>> > @@ -46,5 +46,7 @@ struct ntsync_wait_args {
>> >  					      struct ntsync_wait_args)
>> >  #define NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_MUTEX		_IOWR(NTSYNC_IOC_BASE, 5, \
>> >  					      struct ntsync_mutex_args)
>> > +#define NTSYNC_IOC_PUT_MUTEX		_IOWR(NTSYNC_IOC_BASE, 6, \
>> > +					      struct ntsync_mutex_args)
>> > 
>> 
>> In your implementation, this argument is not written back to
>> user space, so I think this should be _IOW rather than than _IORW.
>> 
>> Again, no practical difference here.
>
> Hm, but there is a put_user() at the end of the function, or am I 
> missing something?

No, I was just looking at the wrong thing, your version is good.

     Arnd