| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 12:37:38 +0800 From: Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] selftests : Adding symbolic link limits test script On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:38:22 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 17:23:10 +0100 Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be> wrote: > > > This patch adds fs directory in selftests and a script to explain recursive > > and consecutive symbolic linking limits who have been debated > > so many times. > > hm, it's a "test" which doesn't really test anything - it always > succeeds. > > Why do you think the kernel needs this? Thanks for testing Andrew ! As the script states, first loop is trying 10 recursive links but logically stops at 8. The second one is trying 50 consecutive links but stops at 40. Those limits are hardcoded values all over the place in vfs namei.c. btw people have been asking for global definition, sysctl and so on for years but nothing has changed AFAICS. This script tries to show the difference between recursive and consecutive symlinking. Besides this script could be useful for testing specific FS limitation as well. If you find it useful, I can add some features to be more self-explanatory ... If it's still not the case let's forget about it :) Fabian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists