Messages in this thread | | | From | "Balbir Singh" <> | Subject | Re: [BUG] Suspected bug in getpeername and getsockname | Date | Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:11:06 -0800 |
| |
Actually, you are correct about that.
The reasons why I wanted to pass the address is length is
1. It gives more flexibility for any body implementing the protocol specific code. 2. We anyway copy the length in move_addr_to_user, we might as well do it in the system call and pass the length to the protocol. 3. We can finally copy only the length specified back to the user as we do currently.
I correct my self, it is not a BUG.
But, consider a case where a user passes a negative value in len. The system call calls the protocol specific code and then later at the end in move_addr_to_user() catches the error. I feel the error should be caught first hand, we should not have spent the time and space calling the protocol specific code at all, we should catch the error and return immediately.
I feel there are several instances of this in the socket system calls.
Don't u feel they should be fixed.
Balbir
>If move_addr_to_user() takes care of all of the issues, there is no >reason for the protocol specific code to know anything about the >user's len at all. > >You have to show me a purpose for it to get passed down. What would >it get used for? All the protocol specific could should (and does) >do is provide the data back to the top level routine and >move_addr_to_user() takes care of the remaining details.
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |