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: <20241104184442.GA26235@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:44:43 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
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 11/04, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 05:50:49PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Ah, good, I didn't know ;)

> 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.

Well, I won't insist.

To me the change proposed by Eric and me looks much more readable, but
of course this is subjective.

But you know, you can safely ignore me. Alexey and Eric understand this
code much better, so I leave this to you/Alexey/Eric.

Oleg.