On 07/03/2011 12:00 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> }
>>
>> Otherwise we might write over data the user expected. And that logic that
tells to copy_to_user how much data it actually takes to put all the information in
is not there today and would have to be added. You can even verify that required_size
with the ioctl passed size to make 100% sure user space is sane, but I'd claim that a
feature bitmap is plenty of information to ensure that we're not doing something
stupid.
>
> I don't see why we have to caclulate something, then verify it against the
correct answer.
Ah, I think I'm grasping your idea. You'd simply truncate the resulting struct
according to the size passed by the ioctl and call it a day. Well, that works
too. User space simply wouldn't be able to know if all information actually fit
into the struct, but I guess that's fine :).
Right. The idea is that if KVM_FLAG_BLAH implies a field
kvm_struct::blah, then either both are present in the headers, or none
of them.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
