| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=a7tuNOqqiWE-Ncd5YnsUKUOveypopTfApOmHX@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:21:54 +0800 From: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.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 4, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote: > 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. No problem, I will try resend 2-4 with first one merged, Thanks. -- Regards dave -- 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