Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <35b87349-d60a-cc97-5dfe-1eb42ffb432b@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 18:32:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: convert to using fops->write_iter()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <f871a510-d262-bc98-757e-204976e1b82c@kernel.dk>
 <YobePA1M0htNbTRN@zx2c4.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <YobePA1M0htNbTRN@zx2c4.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/19/22 6:18 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 05:43:15PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> +	while (iov_iter_count(iter)) {
>> +		block_len = min(iov_iter_count(iter), sizeof(block));
> 
> Whereas get_random_bytes_user() used a separate len param, it looks like
> this function is using iov's len. Maybe that's not such a bad idea? I'll
> give a shot at fixing that up in both places, and you can tell me what
> you think.

Yes that'd be fine, it's just reading iter->count anyway. Agree that
it'd be nicer to just kill the separate 'len' as the copy advances the
iter anyway.

-- 
Jens Axboe