Re: bug in times.c

[Holger Brunck <holger dot brunck at keymile dot com>]

Hi Petr,

On 03/11/2013 01:05 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 11 March 2013 16:53, Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> -      /* If we come here the memory is valid and the kernel did not
>> +      /* If we come here the memory is valid (or BUF is NULL, which is
>> +       * a valid condition for the kernel syscall) and the kernel did not
>>          return an EFAULT error.  Return the value given by the kernel.  */
> 
> Please also fix the comment above it which says:
> 
>   "We crash applications which pass in an invalid BUF pointer."
> 
> to:
> 
>   "We crash applications which pass in an invalid non-NULL BUF
> pointer.  Linux allows BUF to be NULL."
> 
> The touch() is deliberate to ensure that we don't mistake an EFAULT
> for a valid return value.  However, the kernel will never send us an
> EFAULT if buffer is NULL, so it is safe to bypass it.  The change
> looks OK to me with the above modification to the comment.
> 

do you send a patch for this or should I? Makes no difference for me, just let
me know.

Regards
Holger