On 3/20/20 10:35 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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. */
I am fine with the rename, will sent out a v6 soon.
Cheers,
Longman
