From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752648AbbJOSp0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:45:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36460 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751329AbbJOSpZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:45:25 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:41:58 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Amanieu d'Antras" <amanieu@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/20] x86: Rewrite copy_siginfo_{to,from}_user32
Message-ID: <20151015184158.GA30643@redhat.com>
References: <1444856371-26319-1-git-send-email-amanieu@gmail.com> <1444856371-26319-5-git-send-email-amanieu@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1444856371-26319-5-git-send-email-amanieu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

OOH ;) I'll try to look at this patch and the changes in the generic
code later. A couple of nits right now.

Please CC x86 maintainers, not only x86@kernel.org.

Please do not remove get/put_user_ex from this code. And this reminds
me that we can improve *user_try/*user_catch ...

On 10/14, Amanieu d'Antras wrote:
>
> -int copy_siginfo_to_user32(compat_siginfo_t __user *to, const siginfo_t *from)
> +int copy_siginfo_to_user32(struct compat_siginfo __user *to, const siginfo_t *from)
>  {
> -	int err = 0;
> +	int err, si_code;
>  	bool ia32 = test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32);
>  
> -	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, to, sizeof(compat_siginfo_t)))
> +	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, to, sizeof(siginfo_t)))

Why? This looks wrong.

> +	if (from->si_code < 0) {
> +		err |= __copy_to_user(to->_sifields._pad, from->_sifields._pad, SI_PAD_SIZE * sizeof(int))
> +			? -EFAULT : 0;
> +		return err;

I think you should split this patch. And this change (don't interpet,
just copy) should go as a separate change.

> +	switch (from->si_code & __SI_MASK) {
> +	case __SI_KILL:

I agree, this looks better than ">> 16", but I'd suggest a separate
change too.

[...snip...]

the rest looks unreviewable because you didn't split it and because
you removed try/catch ;) The same for copy-from-user.

Please help us to understand these changes and make the more reviewable
patches if possible. Personally I think you have a point.

Oleg.