linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/cgroup.c: remove dead code

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:	Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:13:26 -0700
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/cgroup.c: remove dead code

On 10/24/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Two questions:
> - Is it really intended to perhaps change release_agent_path[] to have
>   less than PATH_MAX size?

I've got no intention to do so currently.

> - If yes, do you want to return -E2BIG for (nbytes >= PATH_MAX) or for
>   (nbytes >= sizeof(root->release_agent_path)) ?

I think E2BIG for the former for backwards compatabilty; the latter
could be either ENOSPC or E2BIG; i.e. both checks are useful - one to
stop us allocating more memory than is sensible, and one to stop us
overrunning the buffer; the fact that these two are the same size at
the moment is coincidence.

I guess ideally the first check would be for the max() of any of the
data structures that we expect to be able to write over; PATH_MAX was
just picked as a convenience.

Paul
-
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/