Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <ffebaea4-8135-6e2e-fca1-8e9f118ef70b@gmx.de>
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:05:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: Use pointer to d_name[0] in put_user() for compat
 case
Content-Language: en-US
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
        OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>
References: <YgmB01p+p45Cihhg@p100>
 <49a26b7a30254d9fb9653c2f815eaa28@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <0ecb87dcc4cf42328f1f5a7d6abd08ed@AcuMS.aculab.com>
From:   Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <0ecb87dcc4cf42328f1f5a7d6abd08ed@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On 2/14/22 10:26, David Laight wrote:
> From: David Laight
>> Sent: 14 February 2022 09:12
>>
>> From: Helge Deller
>>> Sent: 13 February 2022 22:10
>>>
>>> The put_user(val,ptr) macro wants a pointer in the second parameter, b=
ut in
>>> fat_ioctl_filldir() the d_name field references a whole "array of char=
s".
>>> Usually the compiler automatically converts it and uses a pointer to t=
hat
>>> array, but it's more clean to explicitly give the real pointer to wher=
e someting
>>> is put, which is in this case the first character of the d_name[] arra=
y.
>>
>> That just isn't true.
>>
>> In C both x->char_array and &x->char_array[0] have the same type
>> 'char *'.
>>
>> The 'bug' is caused by put_user() trying to do:
>> 	__typeof__(ptr) __ptr =3D ptr;
>> where __typeof__ is returning char[n] not char *.
>>
>> I've tried a few things but can't get __typeof__ to
>> generate a suitable type for both a simple type and array.
>
> Actually the issue is that put_user() writes a single variable
> and needs a pointer to one.
> So changing to:
> 	put_user(0, &array[0]);
> is probably fine.

Ok.

> But the description is all wrong.

I agree it can be improved.
Would you mind proposing a better description?

Helge