Re: [patch 1/2] Staging: intel_sst: return -EFAULT if

[Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 01:59:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:29:01 +0200
> Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:53:57AM +0530, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> > > > @@ -938,7 +940,7 @@ long intel_sst_ioctl(struct file *file_ptr,
> > > > unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> > > >  		retval = copy_to_user((struct snd_sst_vol *)arg,
> > > >  						&get_vol,
> > > > sizeof(get_vol)); if (retval) {
> > > > -			retval = -EIO;
> > > > +			retval = -EFAULT;
> > > >  			break;
> > > >  		}
> > > >  		/*sst_print_get_vol_info(str_id, &get_vol);*/
> > > Since retval is not used and value assigned is supposed to be
> > > -EFAULT, how about this?
> > > 	if(copy_to_user())
> > > 			return -EIO;
> > > 
> > 
> > No. No.  retval is used.  We can't return directly because we need to
> > call unlock_kernel().
> 
> Dan - your tree is a couple of patches stale at this point if it has
> the lock_kernel in it - the lock_kernel has gone in the latest
> submission.

Yes.  That went in last night.  Vinod already told me.

I'll submit another patch which changes the file to the
	if (copy_to_user())
		retval = -EFAULT;
format.  It will apply on top of the patches I sent already.

There are some other bugs I noticed when I wrote that so it's worth it
to clean it up.

regards,
dan carpenter