Re: AUDIT: copy_from_user is a deathtrap.

[Denis Vlasenko]

> On 22 May 02 at 12:27, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > > As Linus and others pointed out, copy_{to_from}_user has its uses and
> > > will stay, but something like:
> >
> > I don't say 'kill it', I say 'rename it so that its name tells users what
> > return value to expect'. However, one have to weigh
>
> Why?

Why what? Why rename copy_to_user? Because in its current form people
misunderstand its return value and misuse it.
We can keep unmodified version of copy_to_user for some time for
compatibility.

Or maybe your "why?" is related to something else, I fail
to understand you in that case.

> From copyin/out descriptions sent yesterday if you want same source code
> running on all (BSD,SVR4,OSF/1) platforms, you must do
>
> if (copyin()) return [-]EFAULT;

But if I am new to Linux and just want to write my first piece of kernel
code, copyout() is even worse than copy_to_user(): 
it too lacks info of what it can return (0/1, 0/-EFAULT, # of copied bytes,
# of bytes remaining?) *and* copy direction become unclear:
copy out of *what*? out of kernel memery? out of user memory?
--
vda