[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180329181515.GL30543@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:15:15 +0000
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] sysctl: Add flags to support min/max range
clamping
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:39:19AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 03/16/2018 09:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> When the CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE flag is set in the ctl_table
> >> entry, any update from the userspace will be clamped to the given
> >> range without error if either the proc_dointvec_minmax() or the
> >> proc_douintvec_minmax() handlers is used.
> > I don't get it. Why define a generic range flag when we can be mores specific and
> > you do that in your next patch. What's the point of this flag then?
> >
> > Luis
>
> I was thinking about using the signed/unsigned bits as just annotations
> for ranges for future extension. For the purpose of this patchset alone,
> I can merge the three bits into just two.
Only introduce flags which you will actually use in the same patch series.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists