Petr Vandrovec wrote: [...] > * read() always failed with -EFAULT. This was happening due to > raw1394_compat_read copying data to wrong location - access_ok always > failed as 'r' is kernel address, not user. Whole function just tried to > copy data from 'r' to 'r', which is not good. > > * write(fd, buf, 52) from 32bit app was returning 56. Most of callers did not > care, but some (arm registration) did, and anyway it looks bad if request > for > writing 52 bytes returns 56. And returning sizeof anything in 'int' is not > good as well. So all functions now return '0' instead of > sizeof(struct raw1394_request) on success, and write() itself provides > correct > return value (it just returns value it was asked to write on success as > raw1394 > does not do any partial writes at all). > > * Related to this was problem that write() could have returned 0 when kernel > state would become corrupted and moved to different state than > opened/initialized/connected. Now it returns -EBADFD which seemed > appropriate. > > * And add compat_ioctl. Although all structures are more or less same, > raw1394_iso_packets got pointer inside, and raw1394_cycle_timer got unwanted > padding in the middle. I did not add any translation for ioctls passing > array > of integers around as integers seem to have same size (32 bits) on all > architectures supported by Linux. [...]
Thanks for these fixes. They look good at first glance but I will look at them in more detail during the week (and hope that Dan can have a look at them too). I will get back to you once more before I commit because I would like to split it into three patches (for raw1394_compat_read, for write, and for compat_ioctl). -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-= --=== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
