[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140219140021.f187b2cdc396dab44e680078@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:00:21 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
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, 19 Feb 2014 16:55:05 -0500 Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
> 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.
If we're touching the task_struct we could make it a bool.
Or just a single bit(field). task_struct already has a bunch of
bitfields in it (strangely, they aren't contiguous). But some locking
would be needed if tasks-other-than-current can modify the bit.
--
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