[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3e2b8e6a-f6d1-f80a-ed43-e937d8ca8383@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 14:47:18 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: 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 03/29/2018 02:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 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
Yes, will do. Since the merge window is coming, should I wait until it
is over to send out the new patch?
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists