linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ipc/mqueue.c: Drag unneeded code out of locks

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: <fb7fa4d76314.5466d9ba@langara.bc.ca>
Date:	Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:42:34 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Steven Stewart-Gallus <sstewartgallus00@...angara.bc.ca>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	linux-newbie@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ipc/mqueue.c: Drag unneeded code out of locks

Hello, thank you for the criticism.

> It's probably better to do this as three or four separate patches.

Really? Alright if you insist I'll do the next version as multiple
patches.

> Well yes, that's what EMFILE means but "too_many_open_files" doesn't
> make sense in this context!

Fair enough, I'll rename it in the next version.

> Thatsabug.  It only requires CAP_SYS_RESOURCE if we're trying with
> queues_count >= queues_max.

Right, that was dumb of me.

> This test isn't really needed.

I don't follow. If the queue creation is not rejected then the
resource user has to be accounted for right? And we can't add the
resource to accounting if it is not created right?

Thank you,
Steven Stewart-Gallus
--
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/