Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [3/6] kfifo: Sanitize *_user error handling | From | Stefani Seibold <> | Date | Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:10:56 +0100 |
| |
Am Montag, den 28.12.2009, 00:34 +0100 schrieb Andi Kleen: > > I don't like this idea. kfifo_from_user and kfifo_to_user should have > > the same semantics as copy_from_user and copy_to_user. > > Maybe they should have, but the big difference is that the source > FIFO might not have enough data. And both conditions need > to be reported, but not mixed together. > > The actual reporting of the unused length is not > too useful anyways. It's only used very rarely for real > c*u(), and these cases are usually misdesigned interfaces. > > > > I didn't fully adapt the weird "record" variants, those seem > > > to be unused anyways and were rather messy (should they be just removed?) > > > > > > > Believe it or not, it will be used in future. > > Normally in Linux code is only added when it's actually used. > Otherwise it'll bitrot anyways. >
I know a lot of places and structures inside the kernel where it is not this case.
Stefani
| |