linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fs/fcntl: restore checking against COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX for F

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <eb619f2a1366f811ee4f626722437985@etersoft.ru>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:48:00 +0300
From:   Vitaly Lipatov <lav@...rsoft.ru>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc:     wine-patches <wine-patches@...ehq.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/fcntl: restore checking against COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX
 for F_GETLK64

Jeff Layton писал 14.11.17 17:06:
...
>>  			break;
>> -		err = fixup_compat_flock(&flock);
>> +		err = fixup_compat_flock(&flock, COMPAT_OFF_T_MAX);
> 
> I think you want COMPAT_LOFF_T_MAX here? In any case, I'm fine with the
> first version, and just renaming the function. I'll plan to push that
> one unless you have a reason that we should do it this way.
I would like send v3 with fix the typo you told me. As for me, it is 
more clean than two functions.
Was I wrong with MessageId last time or it is ok to have a new thread 
for every patch version?


-- 
С уважением,
Виталий Липатов,
Etersoft