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: <ZykaS1arGZ3DMFkm@example.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:02:35 +0100
From: Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
	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 Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 07:44:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.

Personally, I like Oleg's patch more.

-- 
Rgrds, legion