[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190108070110.GA7998@light.dominikbrodowski.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 08:01:10 +0100
From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
mcgrof@...nel.org, joe.lawrence@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, adobriyan@...il.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/2] sysctl: handle overflow for file-max
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:00PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> @@ -2833,6 +2836,10 @@ static int __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(void *data, struct ctl_table *table, int
> break;
> if (neg)
> continue;
> + if ((max && val > *max) || (min && val < *min)) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }
> val = convmul * val / convdiv;
> if ((min && val < *min) || (max && val > *max))
> continue;
This is a generic change which affects all users of
do_proc_doulongvec_minmax() that have extra1 or extra2 set. In sysctl.c, I
do not see another user of proc_doulongvec_minmax() that has extra1 or
extra2 set. However, have you verified whether your patch changes the
behaviour for other files that make use of proc_doulongvec_minmax() or
proc_doulongvec_ms_jiffies_minmax(), and not only of the file-max sysctl?
Thanks,
Dominik
Powered by blists - more mailing lists