From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH -net] tls: return -EFAULT if copy_to_user() fails Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 03:58:35 -0700 Message-ID: <1498215515.24295.12.camel@perches.com> References: <20170623101544.c5bvwe5cd6e46bd5@mwanda> <1498213904.24295.10.camel@perches.com> <20170623103612.ycduw43oyi6hmtp3@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Dave Watson , Aviad Yehezkel , Ilya Lesokhin , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Carpenter Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170623103612.ycduw43oyi6hmtp3@mwanda> Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 13:36 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 03:31:44AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 13:15 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > The copy_to_user() function returns the number of bytes remaining but we > > > want to return -EFAULT here. > > > > because? > > > > Rhetorical questions don't work over email. Are you honestly confused > by this patch? There doesn't seem to be a fault here, just a return of less than the expected number of bytes. It's non-obvious why -EFAULT is the appropriate return value. Why is changing the return value from number of bytes transferred, even if less than desired, the right thing to do? Your commit message doesn't describe any rationale. getsockopt says: For getsockopt(), optlen is a value-result argument, initially containing the size of the buffer pointed to by optval, and modified on return to indicate the actual size of the value returned The generic EFAULT description in getsockopt is: EFAULT The address pointed to by optval is not in a valid part of the   process address space. For getsockopt(), this error may also be   returned if optlen is not in a valid part of the process address   space. Is tls different?