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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:10:26 -0700
From:	"Ken Chen" <kenchen@...gle.com>
To:	"Tomas M" <tomas@...x.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] remove artificial software max_loop limit

On 4/1/07, Tomas M <tomas@...x.org> wrote:
> I believe that IF you _really_ need to preserve the max_loop module
> parameter, then the parameter should _not_ be ignored, rather it should
> have the same function like before - to limit the loop driver so if you
> use max_loop=10 for example, it should not allow loop.c to create more
> than 10 loops.

Blame on the dual meaning of max_loop that it uses currently: to
initialize a set of loop devices and as a side effect, it also sets
the upper limit.  People are complaining about the former constrain,
isn't it?  Does anyone uses the 2nd meaning of upper limit?

- Ken
-
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ