From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sebastian.capella@linaro.org (Sebastian Capella)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:59:26 -0800
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/2] init/do_mounts.c: ignore final \n in name_to_dev_t
In-Reply-To: <20131022175414.14753.58063@capellas-linux>
References: <1380834638-24035-1-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org>
 <1380834638-24035-2-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org>
 <20131003141523.8b60ab988799af7e2b2c338b@linux-foundation.org>
 <20131003214246.24540.99218@capellas-linux>
 <20131003234735.19051.84583@capellas-linux>
 <20131010175010.17870.58060@capellas-linux>
 <20131022175414.14753.58063@capellas-linux>
Message-ID: <20140128185926.5312.36635@capellas-linux>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Quoting Sebastian Capella (2013-10-22 10:54:14)
> Quoting Sebastian Capella (2013-10-10 10:50:10)
> > Quoting Sebastian Capella (2013-10-03 16:47:35)
> > > Quoting Sebastian Capella (2013-10-03 14:42:46)
> > > I looked into removing the const from the store function, but I'm not sure
> > > this is the right idea, so I'm going to shelf that for now.
> > > 
> > Below are the three options considered thus far.  Do
> > you have any additional suggestions or preferences?
> > 
> > 1) copy buffer, remove \n.
> >   - v1 patch did this
> >   - alternatively could use an array on the stack or a preallocated global
> >     Pros:
> >      . cleanest change
> >      . could use strim() proposed by Andrew
> >     Cons:
> >      . adds memcpy
> > 2) make name_to_dev_t work with readonly buffer to ignore \n
> >   - v2 and v3 patches do this
> >     Pros:
> >      . no memcpy, no big modifications to unrelated code
> >     Cons:
> >      . seems more appropriate to harden store functions to user input
> >        than name_to_dev_t.
> >      . a little complicated
> > 3) remove const from buffer and modify contents in place to remove \n
> >   - remove const from sysfs_ops.store, modify dependent definitions
> >   - remove const from kobj_attribute.store, modify dependent definitions
> >     Pros:
> >      . no memcpy
> >     Cons:
> >      . a lot of modifications
> >      . const contract to not modify the input buffer seems the right way.
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Do you have any feedback for me on this?
> 
> I'm happy do make any changes you think are correct, but I'm unsure if
> you're asking me for option #3 above.  It's quite an intrusive change,
> and changes old, established code and I'd like confirmation that's what
> you'd like before proceeding down that path.
> 
> I've submitted patches with both options #1 and #2 above.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sebastian

Ping.

Sorry for the lapse in attention to this.

Could you please clarify what is needed for this to be acceptable?
I'm a little confused about what is being asked of me.

Thanks!

Sebastian