From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754223Ab0JGJv3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2010 05:51:29 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:34973 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753423Ab0JGJv1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2010 05:51:27 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=E4j6lOKsc8XGpaXU77nfC9GJ3MGrTy496pnd5/03ppGf9a0RLmT0gxMJJTkSJlm6C/ kfJmqAU6rL16Im3P6Y/+1XVldaO9EJPCP3tNLU2jGaiQDiLgaXYK6YcgkbTQrT/pMbGU N1O//I4VRse4ym7ZIBzSWocGIykL8MBpc4nLI= Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl: fix min/max handling in __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax() From: Eric Dumazet To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico?= Wang Cc: Robin Holt , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , Willy Tarreau , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , "Pekka Savola (ipv6)" , Patrick McHardy , Alexey Kuznetsov , ebiederm@xmission.com In-Reply-To: <20101007092538.GE5471@cr0.nay.redhat.com> References: <1286025469.2582.1806.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101004085913.GR14068@sgi.com> <1286183058.18293.26.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101004093439.GG5189@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <1286187030.18293.33.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101004103545.GJ5189@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <1286188701.18293.57.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101005130117.GK5170@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <20101007071859.GD5471@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <20101007092538.GE5471@cr0.nay.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:51:21 +0200 Message-ID: <1286445081.2912.15.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010 à 17:25 +0800, Américo Wang a écrit : > >> > > > >Here is the final one. > > Oops, that one is not correct. Hopefully this one > is correct. > > ---------------> > > Eric D. noticed that we may trigger an OOPS if we leave ->extra{1,2} > to NULL when we use proc_doulongvec_minmax(). > > Actually, we don't need to store min/max values in a vector, > because all the elements in the vector should share the same min/max > value, like what proc_dointvec_minmax() does. > If we assert same min/max limits are to be applied to all elements, a much simpler fix than yours would be : diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c index f88552c..8e45451 100644 --- a/kernel/sysctl.c +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c @@ -2485,7 +2485,7 @@ static int __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(void *data, struct ctl_table *table, int kbuf[left] = 0; } - for (; left && vleft--; i++, min++, max++, first=0) { + for (; left && vleft--; i++, first=0) { unsigned long val; if (write) { Please dont send huge patches like this to 'fix' a bug, especially on slow path. First we fix the bug, _then_ we can try to make code more efficient or more pretty or shorter. So the _real_ question is : Should the min/max limits should be a single pair, shared by all elements, or a vector of limits.