From: Andy Walls <awalls@md.metrocast.net>
To: Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] lirc_zilog: error out if buffer read bytes != chunk size
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:50:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1300409433.2317.64.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110317190827.GD5941@redhat.com>
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 15:08 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:16:31PM -0400, Andy Walls wrote:
> > Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote:
> .
> >
> > But the orignal intent of the check I put in was to avoid passing
> partial/junk data to userspace, and go around again to see if good
> data could be provided.
> >
> > Your check bails when good data that might be sitting there still.
> That doesn't seem like a good trade for supporting backward compat for
> old kernels.
>
> Ah. Another thing I neglected to notice then. :)
>
> Perhaps there should be a retry count check as well then, as otherwise,
> its possible to get stuck in that loop forever (which is what was
> happening on older kernels). Its conceivable that similar could happen on
> a newer kernel for some reason.
Well, lets see,
>From the perspective of userspace & lircd:
1. A specification compliance failure for a corner case isn't too bad
(bailing out on junk and leaving good data behind)
2. An unrecoverable failure for any case is very bad (spinning/hanging
on a result that won't change)
3. Sending unitialized bytes out to userspace with copy_to_user() is
very bad.
(I recall the old code would do the copy to user and always tell
userspace it got a code whether it read anything out of the buffer or
not. IIRC, that leaked information off the stack.)
If the code as patched avoids the two very bad things (#2 and #3), then
the patch is OK by me.
Regards,
Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-18 0:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-16 20:24 [PATCH 0/6] media: trivial IR fixes Jarod Wilson
2011-03-16 20:24 ` [PATCH 1/6] docs: fix typo in lirc_device_interface.xml Jarod Wilson
2011-03-16 20:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] imon: add more panel scancode mappings Jarod Wilson
2011-03-16 20:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] ir-kbd-i2c: pass device code w/key in hauppauge case Jarod Wilson
2011-03-16 20:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] lirc: silence some compile warnings Jarod Wilson
2011-03-16 20:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] lirc_zilog: error out if buffer read bytes != chunk size Jarod Wilson
2011-03-17 0:07 ` Andy Walls
2011-03-17 13:19 ` Jarod Wilson
2011-03-17 15:29 ` Andy Walls
2011-03-17 15:42 ` Jarod Wilson
2011-03-17 16:16 ` Andy Walls
2011-03-17 19:08 ` Jarod Wilson
2011-03-18 0:50 ` Andy Walls [this message]
2011-03-22 20:39 ` Jarod Wilson
2011-03-16 20:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] mceusb: topseed 0x0011 needs gen3 init for tx to work Jarod Wilson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1300409433.2317.64.camel@localhost \
--to=awalls@md.metrocast.net \
--cc=jarod@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.