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 16:52:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:52:41 -0500 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:11192 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:52:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:00:19 -0800 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Der Herr Hofrat Cc: der.herr@hofr.at, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bug in kernel/sysctl.c (SYSIPC) ? Message-Id: <20030318140019.368003f5.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200303181856.h2IIu6b16953@hofr.at> References: <20030318104051.0fb171ed.rddunlap@osdl.org> <200303181856.h2IIu6b16953@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 19:55:36 +0100 (CET) Der Herr Hofrat wrote: | > 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? | > | | not directly a problem - my assumption was that shmmax would be bounded in some | way - currently you can write any value into /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax - and I | don't think that the inteded behavior of this is to permit any value - or if | it is - what is the point of using the _minimax and not simple proc_doulongvec ? Good observation. Yes, shmmax is unbounded, root can write any value to it. I don't know why proc_doulongvec_minmax is used there, except that I don't see a proc_doulongvec() without _minmax on it. -- ~Randy