From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:33:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:33:06 -0500 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:56254 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:33:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:40:51 -0800 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Der Herr Hofrat Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bug in kernel/sysctl.c (SYSIPC) ? Message-Id: <20030318104051.0fb171ed.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200303180751.h2I7pIT11537@hofr.at> References: <200303180751.h2I7pIT11537@hofr.at> Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:51:17 +0100 (CET) Der Herr Hofrat wrote: | atleast in kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4.20 in kernel/sysctl.c shmmax and shmall use | the proc_dointvec_minmax callback without passing a min/max value - is there | a reson for this or is this a simple bug ? | | linux/kenrel/sysctl.c (line 221 for 2.4.19/20) | | #ifdef CONFIG_SYSVIPC | {KERN_SHMMAX, "shmmax", &shm_ctlmax, sizeof (size_t), | 0644, NULL, &proc_doulongvec_minmax}, | {KERN_SHMALL, "shmall", &shm_ctlall, sizeof (size_t), | 0644, NULL, &proc_doulongvec_minmax}, | ... | #endif The min and max values default to 0 if not specified (initialized), and the _minmax functions have code to handle those cases. so as long as the intended min/max values were 0, I don't see a problem. Are you seeing a problem? -- ~Randy