linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 4/4] cgroups: implement the PIDs subsystem

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: <CAOviyaimfHD=Jg1+FEwyapwO=zdaL0bvq8YDA1Cnq90YbfGENQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 May 2015 03:44:24 +1000
From:	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	lizefan@...wei.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, richard@....at,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/4] cgroups: implement the PIDs subsystem

>> Would you be okay with this?
>>
>>     if (limit < 0 || limit >= PIDS_MAX)
>>
>> I'd prefer if we used PIDS_MAX as the maximum input value as well as
>> being the internal representation of the maximum, rather than
>> switching to something like INT_MAX.
>
> Yeah, that sounds okay to me but I forgot why we went for INT_MAX in
> the first place.  Do you remember why we tried INT_MAX at all?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun

I think it's because we didn't want to expose PIDS_MAX to userspace.
But we're not *really* exposing it, we're just enforcing the input
limit for "max".

--
Aleksa Sarai (cyphar)
www.cyphar.com
--
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/