lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] Input: introduce ABS_MAX2/CNT2 and friends
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:25:42AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:05:37PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:55:04AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:48:37PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 19, 2013 09:40:09 AM Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > > > > > + memset(&abs, 0, sizeof(abs));
> > > > > > + for (i = valid_cnt; i < cnt; ++i)
> > > > > > + if (copy_to_user(&pinfo->info[i], &abs, sizeof(abs)))
> > > > > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > why don't you return the number of valid copied axes to the user?
> > > > > that seems better even than forcing the remainder to 0.
> > > >
> > > > Well, if your program messed up buffers that it faulted we do not know
> > > > for sure if data that did not cause fault ended up where it should have
> > > > or if it smashed something else. This condition I think should be
> > > > signaled early.
> > >
> > > not 100% sure I understand but I wasn't proposing to remove the -EFAULT, i
> > > was proposing to replace "return 0" with "return valid_cnt".
> >
> > I understand what you were saying. Now consider: your program supplied
> > buffer that is actually smaller than what it said to the kernel.
> > Depending on the exact placement we may or may not fault when we get
> > pass the buffer boundary, most likely not. We are likely to fault when
> > we go way past the buffer boundary and wracked process' memory. If we
> > return -EFAULT the program will at least notice that something wrong. If
> > we return count it will try to resubmit the remainder of operation and
> > not even know that there was something very bad happening.
> >
> > IOW we should not treat fault condition as other partial read/write
> > conditions.
>
> I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing :)

Hmm, it appears you are right ;)

> let me rephrase: why can't we use the behaviour bits_to_user() provides?
> it limits the output to maxlen and returns that value (or -EFAULT), it's
> only a small step from that to limit the output to min(maxbit, ABS_CNT2).

OK, makes sense.

--
Dmitry


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-19 02:01    [W:0.052 / U:0.888 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site