On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:11:46PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Nathan Chancellor > > Sent: 04 October 2019 20:44 > ... > > > IOW, the code should have just been > > > > > > ret = test(umem_src == NULL, "kmalloc failed"); > > > if (ret) ... > > > > Yes, I had this as the original fix but I tried to keep the same > > intention as the original author. I should have gone with my gut. Sorry > > for the ugliness, I'll try to be better in the future. > > This rather begs the question about why 'usercopy' is ever calling kmalloc() > at all.
Do you even bother to read what you are commenting upon, or is it simply the irresistable pleasure of being seen[*]? When a function called 'test_copy_struct_from_user' starts with a couple of allocations, one called 'umem_src' and another - 'expected', what could that possibly be about? Something to do with testing copy_struct_from_user(), perhaps? And, taking a wild guess, maybe allocating a buffer or two to be somehow used in setting the test up? Or you could just go and read the damn function, you twit. [*] sensu Monty Python, if we are lucky enough
