linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] signal: restore the override

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: <ZykQnp9mINnsPTg2@google.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:21:18 +0000
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...gle.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: restore the override_rlimit logic

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 05:50:49PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/02, Alexey Gladkov wrote:
> >
> > +Cc Oleg Nesterov.
> 
> Well, I tend to agree with Roman and his patch looks good to me.

Thanks, Oleg!

> 
> But it seems that the change in inc_rlimit_get_ucounts() can be
> a bit simpler and more readable, see below.

Eric suggested the same approach earlier in this thread. I personally
don't have a strong preference here or actually I slightly prefer my
own version because this comparison to LONG_MAX looks confusing to me.
But if you have a strong preference, I'm happy to send out v2. Please,
let me know.

Thanks!