linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] pipe: fix limit checking in pipe_set

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]

Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2016 23:35:41 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, socketpair@...il.com,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] pipe: fix limit checking in pipe_set_size()

Hi Michael,

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:15:35AM +1200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Willy,
> 
> Might you have a chance to further review of this patch series?
> It would be great if you could, since much of it touches changes
> made by you earlier.

Well, all I did there was implementing a suggestion from Linus, but I'm
not a specialist at all there. However I've read all your series and at
least with my limited knowledge, all I've read seems to make sense at
the code matches the descriptions. I don't remember any particular trap
in this place so I'm not worried.

I remember that I noticed this inaccuracy in the accounting but I
estimated it was not important since the goal was to *limit* resource
usage with a simple patch that we could easily backport. Your approach
looks clean and possibly backportable if needed. That's all I can say
I'm afraid :-/

Cheers,
Willy