lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] vfs.git pile 11
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:45:36PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > + if (unlikely(!check_copy_size(addr, bytes, false)))
> > + return false;
> > + else
> > + return _copy_from_iter_full(addr, bytes, i);
> >
> > Can these be rewritten to avoid the double-negative?
>
> Matter of taste - I've no strong preferences here.
>
> > + might_fault();
> >
> > Should this be might_sleep()? Just from reading the patch it looked
> > like you were adding might_sleep()s in the other cases.
>
> D'oh - shouldn't have written that pull request message before the
> first cup of coffee... might_sleep() it is, of course.

Hrm... Said that, might_sleep() doesn't check one thing might_fault()
does - the
#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP)
if (current->mm)
might_lock_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
#endif
thing. Let me think a bit...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-06 22:30    [W:0.046 / U:44.624 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site