On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM, One Thousand Gnomes
<gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:35:54 -0800
> Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:09:41PM +0000, Serban Constantinescu wrote:
>> > +#define size_helper(x) ({ \
>> > + size_t __size; \
>> > + if (!is_compat_task()) \
>> > + __size = sizeof(x); \
>> > + else if (sizeof(x) == sizeof(struct flat_binder_object)) \
>> > + __size = sizeof(struct compat_flat_binder_object); \
>> > + else if (sizeof(x) == sizeof(struct binder_transaction_data)) \
>> > + __size = sizeof(struct compat_binder_transaction_data); \
>> > + else if (sizeof(x) == sizeof(size_t)) \
>> > + __size = sizeof(compat_size_t); \
>> > + else \
>> > + BUG(); \
>> > + __size; \
>> > + })
>>
>> Ick.
>>
>> First off, no driver should ever be able to crash the kernel, which you
>> just did.
>
> And which would appear to mean that this code hasn't actually been
> tested - at least not properly with error cases ?
>
> You talk about type safety too but your code is already full of
> "put_user(node->ptr, (void * __user *)ptr))"
None of this (the patch series or the original code) is mine. My
question was more of a general one on designing ioctls, as well as
concerns with changing the existing 32-bit api.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
