Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] exec: introduce get_arg_ptr() helper

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 03/03, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > +static const char __user *
> > +get_arg_ptr(const char __user * const __user *argv, int argc)
> > +{
>
> [argc, argv] is natural order to me than [argv, argc].

Yes... in fact, "argc" is misnamed here. It doesn't mean the number of
arguments, it is the index in the array. Perhaps this should be [argv, nr].

> and "get_" prefix are usually used for reference count incrementing
> function in linux. so, i _personally_ prefer to call "user_arg_ptr".

Agreed, the name is ugly. I'll rename and resend keeping your reviewed-by.

[2/4]
> I _personally_ don't like "conditional". Its name is based on code logic.
> It's unclear what mean "conditional". From data strucuture view, It is
> "opaque userland pointer".

I agree with any naming, just suggest a better name ;)

[3/4]
> > +     struct conditional_ptr argv = {
> > +             .is_compat = true, .ptr.compat = __argv,
> > +     };
>
> Please don't mind to compress a line.
>
>         struct conditional_ptr argv = {
>                 .is_compat = true,
>                 .ptr.compat = __argv,
>         };

OK, will do.

Thanks for review!

Oleg.