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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100317213504.GA7433@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:35:04 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>, sri@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tun: add ioctl to modify vnet header size

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:10:11PM -0700, David Stevens wrote:
> Shouldn't we enforce a maximum too? Esp. if overflow/underflow
> will break any of the checks when it's used.
> 
>                                 +-DLS

So the maximum is MAX_INT :)
I don't think it can break any checks that aren't
already broken - what do you have in mind?


-- 
MST
--
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