On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:14 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since this worked before I do agree that we need to keep it working now, > and I can't think of an issue with returning 0 now. Since this is about > semantics though I'd like a bit more review from at last one more > person. > > Kees, Eric, Andrew? This is a weird one: it would return an error _AND_ still perform the write. :( I think this patch is right, and I struggle to imagine a case where removing the failure is a problem. A quick question, though, do we want to instead do the reverse? (Not update, and keep the error?) Are there any examples of doing partial writes like this in real software? The proposed change is the safest change, though... -- Kees Cook
