linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/05] use proc_dointvec_minmax to check boundaries while needed

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: <20110304140404.GK11359@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:04:04 -0500
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/05] use proc_dointvec_minmax to check boundaries while
 needed

On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 09:41:59AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:58:20PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> >> proc_dointvec doesn't check extra minmax params, use proc_dointvec_minmax
> >> instead of proc_dointvec for cases need boundaries check.
> >
> > Is this patch needed, if you are basically changing it again in patches 3
> > and 5?
> 
> Sure if 3 and 5 is acked, if someone object them then this is good?

Ok.  I guess I would have posted patches 2-4 first to get everyone's
opinion.  Then if the reaction was negative, try with patch 1.

Personally I don't see any problems with patches 2-4.  Then again I don't
deal with sysctl that much, so I don't what rules there are in that area of
code.

Cheers,
Don
--
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/