[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDFylh_DM8XpmZM8@localhost>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 15:56:38 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Max Georgiev <glipus@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
kory.maincent@...tlin.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev,
gerhard@...leder-embedded.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/5] Add ndo_hwtstamp_get/set support to vlan code
path
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 12:21:37AM -0600, Max Georgiev wrote:
> It looks like there is a possibility that the returned hwtstamp_config structure
> will be copied twice to ifr and copied once from ifr on the return path
> in case if the underlying driver does not implement ndo_hwtstamp_get():
> - the underlying driver calls copy_to_user() inside its ndo_eth_ioctl()
> implementation to return the data to generic_hwtstamp_get_lower();
> - then generic_hwtstamp_get_lower() calls copy_from_user() to copy it
> back out of the ifr to kernel_hwtstamp_config structure;
> - then dev_get_hwtstamp() calls copy_to_user() again to update
> the same ifr with the same data the ifr already contains.
>
> Should we consider this acceptable?
This is a slow path so copying a small structure is not a concern.
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists