Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: proc_file_read() hack? | From | Thomas Hood <> | Date | 27 Mar 2002 20:02:20 -0500 |
| |
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 13:26, Todd Inglett wrote: > I guess I don't understand the conflict.
There are three cases: 0) start == 0 1) 0 < start < buffer 2) start >= buffer
These exhaust all the possible values that can be returned in *start.
You propose to change the code so that there are three cases: 0) start == 0 1') 0 < start < PROC_BLOCK_SIZE 2'/3) start >= PROC_BLOCK_SIZE
However, we can't make the change you propose because it would break functions that use case #1 with a *start value greater than PROC_BLOCK_SIZE.
>... is there a chance that start >= PROC_BLOCK_SIZE (but start < page) > in case #1?
Yes.
> If that is true I am wondering how it could possibly be correct > since start will be used as a length which is greater than the > size of the page.
start will be used as an offset, not as a length.
If you think the hack was a bad idea, I agree with you. But we can't change it without auditing all the proc read functions that use case #1.
-- Thomas Hood
- 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/
| |