linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] staging: lustre: fixed signedness of some socklnd params

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: <1511480841.8829.3.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:47:21 +0100
From:   Stefano Manni <stefano.manni@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] staging: lustre: fixed signedness of some socklnd
 params

On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 15:13 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I've looked through this series and I feel like none of these are
> real
> bugs.  It's just about type safety and being consistent.  Which are
> good
> things.  I'm not sure that I like the parts where we make the
> variables
> signed.
> 
> Here "nscheds" is the number of threads.  How can we have a negative
> number?  I think it should be unsigned.  It's way more tricky to
> change
> the rest of the code, and leave nscheds unsigned int but I think it's
> probably the right thing.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

I've made the module param nsched signed because the
ksock_tunables.ksnd_nscheds (the real container) is signed too.

I definitely agree with you that it does not make sense to have a
negative number of threads.
In my opinion it's better to fix this inconsistency between the param
and the container and then try submit another patch to harmonize
signedness around the code.

Thanks,
Stefano