* Andy Walls (awa...@md.metrocast.net) wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 00:34 +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> > It looks like we missed something in that copy from user
> > patch from the end of last year:
> >
> > +void ivtv_write_vbi_from_user(struct ivtv *itv,
> > +
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 00:34 +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> It looks like we missed something in that copy from user
> patch from the end of last year:
>
> +void ivtv_write_vbi_from_user(struct ivtv *itv,
> + const struct v4l2_sliced_vbi_data __user
Hi Andy,
It looks like we missed something in that copy from user
patch from the end of last year:
+void ivtv_write_vbi_from_user(struct ivtv *itv,
+ const struct v4l2_sliced_vbi_data __user *sliced,
+ size_t cnt)
+{
+ struct vbi_cc c
* Andy Walls (awa...@md.metrocast.net) wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 17:40 +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Sparse pointed me at the following line in ivtv-fileops.c's
> > ivtv_v4l2_write:
> >
> > ivtv_write_vbi(itv, (const struct v4l2_sliced_vbi_data
> > *)use
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 17:40 +, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> Hi,
> Sparse pointed me at the following line in ivtv-fileops.c's ivtv_v4l2_write:
>
> ivtv_write_vbi(itv, (const struct v4l2_sliced_vbi_data
> *)user_buf, elems);
>
Hi David,
Let me know if this patch works f
Andy Walls wrote:
(Sorry, I've probably screwed up the threading on this)
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Sparse pointed me at the following line in ivtv-fileops.c's
> > ivtv_v4l2_write:
> >
> > ivtv_write_vbi(itv, (const struct v4l2_sliced_vbi_data
> > *)user_
Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> Hi,
> Sparse pointed me at the following line in ivtv-fileops.c's ivtv_v4l2_write:
>
> ivtv_write_vbi(itv, (const struct v4l2_sliced_vbi_data
> *)user_buf, elems);
>
> Now user_buf is a parameter:
> const char __user *user_buf,
>
> so that is
Hi,
Sparse pointed me at the following line in ivtv-fileops.c's ivtv_v4l2_write:
ivtv_write_vbi(itv, (const struct v4l2_sliced_vbi_data
*)user_buf, elems);
Now user_buf is a parameter:
const char __user *user_buf,
so that is losing the __user, and I don't see what else prot
