[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <702540E4-9FD3-4B71-B53A-FE5D4323A898@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:00:27 -0500
From: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
To: Vladislav Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <andrei@...el.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sctp: fix incorrect overflow check on autoclose
On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Vladislav Yasevich wrote:
> Hm.. this is a bit strange. This makes it so that on 32 bit platforms
> we have one upper bound for autoclose and on 64 we have another even though
> the type is platform dependent. This could be considered a regression by
> applications.
Either looks good to me. Timeout limit is essentially different on 32/64
platforms.
Another (probably uglier) option is to limit the value on 32-bit platform
only, like sock_setsockopt() in net/core/sock.c.
#if (BITS_PER_LONG == 32)
if (sp->autoclose > MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ)
sp->autoclose = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ;
#endif
> In addition this would result in confusion to user since the values
> between setsockopt() and getsockopt() for autoclose would be different.
Are you suggesting to reject the value and return -EINVAL, rather than
silently limiting the autoclose value?
- xi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists