On 2019-09-26, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:03:29AM +0200, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > +int is_zeroed_user(const void __user *from, size_t size)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long val;
> > +	uintptr_t align = (uintptr_t) from % sizeof(unsigned long);
> > +
> > +	if (unlikely(!size))
> > +		return true;
> 
> You're returning "true" and another implicit boolean with (val == 0)
> down below but -EFAULT in other places. But that function is int
> is_zeroed_user() Would probably be good if you either switch to bool
> is_zeroed_user() as the name suggests or rename the function and have
> it return an int everywhere.

I just checked, and in C11 (and presumably in older specs) it is
guaranteed that "true" and "false" from <stdbool.h> have the values 1
and 0 (respectively) [§7.18]. So this is perfectly well-defined.

Personally, I think it's more readable to have:

  if (unlikely(size == 0))
    return true;
  /* ... */
  return (val == 0);

compared to:

  if (unlikely(size == 0))
    return 1;
  /* ... */
  return val ? 0 : 1;

But I will change the function name (to check_zeroed_user) to make it
clearer that it isn't returning a boolean and that you need to check for
negative returns.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>