On Saturday 16 May 2015 00:46:44 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops,
> > + unsigned, nsops,
> > + const struct __kernel_timespec __user *, timeout)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long jiffies_left = 0;
> > +
> > + if (timeout) {
> > + struct timespec64 _timeout;
> > + if (get_timespec64(&_timeout, timeout))
>
> Moo. I had to look 3 times to get not confused by the extra
> underscore. What's wrong with a proper variable name which is easy to
> distinguish?
>
> > + return -EFAULT;
>
> > + if (_timeout.tv_sec < 0 || _timeout.tv_nsec < 0 ||
> > + _timeout.tv_nsec >= 1000000000L)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> We have proper helper functions to validate time specs.
I tried to change the existing code as little as possible, but I agree
with your points here. I'll add a cleanup patch to fix the current code
before my own patches.
Arnd
--
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/
