linux-kernel - Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?

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]

Message-ID: <h8fy1w40zc.fsf@pepelac.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:17:11 +0200
From:	Anton Arapov <aarapov@...hat.com>
To:	James Pearson <james-p@...ing-picture.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Guy Streeter <guy.streeter@...il.com>,
	James Pearson <james-p@...ing-picture.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4096 byte limit to /proc/PID/environ ?

James Pearson <james-p@...ing-picture.com> writes:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Guy Streeter wrote:
>>>On 6/1/06, James Pearson <james-p@...ing-picture.com> wrote:
>>>>H. Peter Anvin wrote:
[...skipped...]
>>>>The following patch is based on the /proc/PID/mem code appears to work fine.
>>>This thread has gone stale. The PAGE_SIZE limit still exists. Is this
>>>solution acceptable?
>> Can we avoid the code duplication?
> There isn't that much that is duplicated - and there are also bits of
> the /proc/PID/mem code that are not needed in this case, so I'm not
> really sure if it is worth doing.
>
> I did submit a patch a few months ago - see:
> <http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117862109623007&w=2>
  Yep, I'm sure we should not reuse something from mem part, there are some insignificant code duplicating. If we will try to avoid this, it will complicate code and does not bring any advantage. 

-- 
Anton Arapov, <aarapov@...hat.com>

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped