Re: [patch 14/45] posix-timers: Consolidate interval retrieval

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, Jun 30 2023 at 13:25, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:47:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 28 2023 at 15:08, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> 
>> > Le Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 04:37:40PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> >> There is no point to collect the current interval in the posix clock
>> >> specific settime() and gettime() callbacks. Just do it right in the common
>> >> code.
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > The only difference I see is that we now return the old interval
>> > even if the target is reaped, which probably doesn't matter anyway.
>> 
>> But we don't return it to user space because ret != 0 in that case.
>
> In the case of ->set yes but in the case of ->get there is no error
> handling.

SYSCALL_DEFINE2(timer_gettime, timer_t, timer_id,
		struct __kernel_itimerspec __user *, setting)
{
	struct itimerspec64 cur_setting;

	int ret = do_timer_gettime(timer_id, &cur_setting);
	if (!ret) {
		if (put_itimerspec64(&cur_setting, setting))

How exactly does this end up being copied to user space if ret != 0?

Thanks,

        tglx