Messages in this thread | | | From | "Petr Vandrovec" <> | Date | Wed, 22 May 2002 12:08:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: AUDIT: copy_from_user is a deathtrap. |
| |
On 22 May 02 at 12:27, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > As Linus and others pointed out, copy_{to_from}_user has its uses and will > > stay, but something like: > > I don't say 'kill it', I say 'rename it so that its name tells users what > return value to expect'. However, one have to weigh
Why? OSF/1's copyin/copyout returns exactly same value which our current copy_{to,from}_user does. You should not penalize developers who read documentation.
> I usually vote for long_but_easy_to_understand_name(), but it's MHO only. > > > #define copyin(...) (copy_from_user(...) ? -EFAULT : 0) > > #define copyout(...) (copy_to_user(...) ? -EFAULT : 0) > > This falls in cryptcnshrt() category. > Will "new programmer" grasp form the name alone that it returns EFAULT? > /me in doubt. OTOH BSD folks may be happy.
From copyin/out descriptions sent yesterday if you want same source code running on all (BSD,SVR4,OSF/1) platforms, you must do
if (copyin()) return [-]EFAULT;
anyway, otherwise OSF/1 and SVR4 variants are wrong. Petr Vandrovec vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
- 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/
| |