On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 09:27:03AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 3/19/20 10:07 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 08:07:55PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 3/19/20 3:46 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:14:57PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>> + * It is possible, though unlikely, that the key
> >>>> + * changes in between the up_read->down_read period.
> >>>> + * If the key becomes longer, we will have to
> >>>> + * allocate a larger buffer and redo the key read
> >>>> + * again.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (!tmpbuf || unlikely(ret > tmpbuflen)) {
> >>> Shouldn't you check that tmpbuflen stays below buflen (why else
> >>> you had made copy of buflen otherwise)?
> >> The check above this thunk:
> >>
> >> if ((ret > 0) && (ret <= buflen)) {
> >>
> >> will make sure that ret will not be larger than buflen. So tmpbuflen > >> will never be bigger than buflen. > > Ah right, of course, thanks.
> >
> > What would go wrong if the condition was instead
> > ((ret > 0) && (ret <= tmpbuflen))?
>
> That if statement is a check to see if the actual key length is longer
> than the user-supplied buffer (buflen). If that is the case, it will
> just return the expected length without storing anything into the user
> buffer. For the case that buflen >= ret > tmpbuflen, the revised check
> above will incorrectly skip the storing step causing the caller to
> incorrectly think the key is there in the buffer.
>
> Maybe I should clarify that a bit more in the comment.
OK, right because it is possible in-between tmpbuflen could be
larger. Got it.
I think that longish key_data and key_data_len would be better
names than tmpbuf and tpmbuflen.
Also the comments are somewat overkill IMHO.
I'd replace them along the lines of
/* Cap the user supplied buffer length to PAGE_SIZE. */
/* Key data can change as we don not hold key->sem. */
/Jarkko
