linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] tty: vt, remove reduntant check

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160331152527.4beefda9@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:25:27 +0100
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] tty: vt, remove reduntant check

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:08:14 +0200
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:

> MAX_NR_CONSOLES and MAX_NR_USER_CONSOLES are both 63 since they were
> introduced in 1.1.54. And since vc_allocate does:
> 
> if (currcons >= MAX_NR_CONSOLES)
> 	return -ENXIO;
> 
> if (!vc_cons[currcons].d) {
> 	if (currcons >= MAX_NR_USER_CONSOLES && !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> 		return -EPERM;
> }
> 
> the second check is pointless. Remove both the check and the macro
> MAX_NR_USER_CONSOLES.

Actually going back over that ignore the NAK - they change both MAX_NR
and MAX_NR_USER so the assertion is still true.

Alan