On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:15:33 -0700, Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2010-02-18, at 22:42, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > +static int do_sys_name_to_handle(const char __user *name,
> > + struct file_handle *handle)
> > +{
> > + /* we ask for a non connected handle */
> > + retval = exportfs_encode_fh(path.dentry, (struct fid *)f_handle,
> > + &handle_size, 0);
> > + if (handle_size < handle->handle_size) {
> > + if (copy_to_user(handle->f_handle, f_handle,
> > + handle_size*sizeof(u32)))
> > + retval = -EFAULT;
>
> Shouldn't this be "handle_size <= handle->handle_size"?
Yes. Will fix in the next iteration.
>
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(name_to_handle, const char __user *, name,
> > + struct file_handle __user *, handle)
> > +{
> > + ret = do_sys_name_to_handle(name, &f_handle);
> > + if (copy_to_user(&handle->handle_type,
> > + &f_handle.handle_type, sizeof(f_handle.handle_type)) ||
> > + copy_to_user(&handle->handle_size,
> > + &f_handle.handle_size, sizeof(f_handle.handle_size)))
>
> It seems strange to do the copy_to_user() of f_handle in
> do_sys_name_to_handle(), but the handle_size and handle_type in
> name_to_handle()? Is there a reason it was split this way?
>
No specific reason.
-aneesh
--
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
