Re: [PATCH] intel: i40e: fix confused code

[Rasmus Villemoes]

On Mon, Oct 19 2015, "Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> From: Rasmus Villemoes [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:58 PM
>> Subject: [PATCH] intel: i40e: fix confused code
>> 
>> This code is pretty confused. The variable name 'bytes_not_copied'
>> clearly indicates that the programmer knew the semantics of
>> copy_{to,from}_user, but then the return value is checked for being
>> negative and used as a -Exxx return value.
>> 
>> I'm not sure this is the proper fix, but at least we get rid of the
>> dead code which pretended to check for access faults.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I believe this patch is unnecessary: if the value is negative, then it
> already is an error code giving some potentially useful information.
> When I dig into the copy_to_user() code, I see in the comments for
> put_user() that -EFAULT is the error being returned.

Thanks, this was precisely the kind of confusion I'm talking about:
copy_{from,to}_user _never_ returns a negative value. It returns
precisely what the very explicit variable name hints.

This is in contrast to the single-scalar functions get_user/put_user,
which do return -EFAULT for error and 0 for success.

(See also lines 479-519 of Documentation/DocBook/kernel-hacking.tmpl).

In the entire kernel source tree, two files contain a check for the
return value from copy_{from,to}_user being negative. It will never
trigger, so might as well be removed - except if it was _supposed_ to be
checking for access violations, in which case one should probably
replace it with actually handling it. Try

  git grep -C2 -E 'copy_(from|to)_user' drivers/net/ethernet/

Rasmus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/