On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:30 PM Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:53 PM Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Which is totally irrelevant because res is NULL and that NULL pointer > > > check > > > should simply return -EFAULT, which is what the syscall fallback returns > > > because the pointer is NULL. > > > > > > But that NULL pointer check is inconsistent anyway: > > > > > > - 64 bit does not have it and never had > > > > > > - the vdso is not capable of handling faults properly anyway. If the > > > pointer is not valid, then it will segfault. So just preventing the > > > segfault for NULL is silly. > > > > > > I'm going to just remove it. > > > > Ah, you are right, I misread. > > > > Anyway, if we want to keep the traditional behavior and get fewer surprises > > for users of seccomp and anything else that might observe clock_gettime > > behavior, below is how I'd do it. (not even build tested, x86-only. I'll > > send a proper patch if this is where we want to take it). > > I posted a series which fixes up the mess 2 hours before you sent this mail :)
And stupid me forgot to CC you. I was entirely sure that I did.... https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Sorry tglx
