[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZykjlaoNTndyR9dz@google.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:42:13 +0000
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 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 08:02:35PM +0100, Alexey Gladkov wrote:
> 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.
Ok, I'll send out a v2 shortly.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists