On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:58:33 -0700
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jeff Layton (jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > As Johannes Weiner pointed out, a couple of the range checks in do_sendfile
> > are redundant and are already checked in rw_verify_area.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/read_write.c | 11 -----------
> > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
> > index 6c8c55d..9c3d98b 100644
> > --- a/fs/read_write.c
> > +++ b/fs/read_write.c
> > @@ -792,7 +792,6 @@ static ssize_t do_sendfile(int out_fd, int in_fd, loff_t *ppos,
> > {
> > struct file * in_file, * out_file;
> > struct inode * in_inode, * out_inode;
> > - loff_t pos;
> > ssize_t retval;
> > int fput_needed_in, fput_needed_out, fl;
> >
> > @@ -838,17 +837,7 @@ static ssize_t do_sendfile(int out_fd, int in_fd, loff_t *ppos,
> > if (!max)
> > max = min(in_inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes, out_inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes);
> >
> > - pos = *ppos;
> > retval = -EINVAL;
> > - if (unlikely(pos < 0))
> > - goto fput_out;
>
> Agree. This check is redundant.
>
> > - if (unlikely(pos + count > max)) {
>
> rw_verify_area does not check s_maxbytes so aren't the checks against
> max still required?
>
Good catch. That's what I get for not touching these patches for a few weeks :)
I'll fix and resend in another day or so.
> > - retval = -EOVERFLOW;
> > - if (pos >= max)
> > - goto fput_out;
> > - count = max - pos;
> > - }
> > -
> > fl = 0;
> > #if 0
> > /*
> > --
> > 1.6.0.6
> >
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
