linux-kernel - Re: [patch] remove artificial software max

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 21:06:50 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>
cc:	Tomas M <tomas@...x.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] remove artificial software max_loop limit


On Apr 1 2007 11:10, Ken Chen wrote:
> 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?

Who cares if the user specifies max_loop=8 but still is able to open up 
/dev/loop8, loop9, etc.? max_loop=X basically meant (at least to me) 
"have at least X" loops ready.


Jan
-- 
-
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/