linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Set bounds on what /proc/self/make-it-fail accepts.

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, 19 Feb 2014 16:55:05 -0500
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set bounds on what /proc/self/make-it-fail accepts.

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:40:25PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
 
 > Switching `make_it_fail' to unsigned makes the test simpler but it does
 > rather muck up the typing in there.  task_struct.make_it_fail is still
 > an int, we should now use simple_strtoul rather than simple_strtol,
 > proc_fault_inject_read()'s snprintf() should now use %u, etc.  None of
 > which actually matters, but still...
 
I toyed with the idea of changing task_struct.make_it_fail to unsigned too,
but only realized I missed that after I'd sent out the diff.

 > Rather than address all that I'm inclined to leave `make_it_fail' as an
 > int, turning your patch into a one-liner?

That works for me too.

	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/