From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:12:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:12:20 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:55691 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:12:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:11:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20020117.131101.118630373.davem@redhat.com> To: balbir_soni@hotmail.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] Suspected bug in getpeername and getsockname From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Balbir Singh" Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:27:17 -0800 What I was trying to state is that the protocol specific code does not get to see the length passed from the user. The protocol specific code would like to look at what the user passed. If move_addr_to_user() takes care of all of the issues, there is no reason for the protocol specific code to know anything about the user's len at all. You have to show me a purpose for it to get passed down. What would it get used for? All the protocol specific could should (and does) do is provide the data back to the top level routine and move_addr_to_user() takes care of the remaining details.