Re: + sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch added to -mm tree

Re: + sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch added to -mm tree

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM,  <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c~sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update
> +++ a/kernel/sysctl.c
> @@ -2515,6 +2515,7 @@ int proc_dointvec_unsigned(struct ctl_ta
>  {
>        struct do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param param = {
>                .min = &zero,
> +               .max = (int *) table->extra2,
>        };
>        return do_proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos,
>                                do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv, &param);

This is still buggybecause "zero" is only 1 variable and max can be an array.
Sysctl boundary comparisons are done element-by-element.

Re: + sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch added to -mm tree

[Dave Young]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM,  <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c~sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update
>> +++ a/kernel/sysctl.c
>> @@ -2515,6 +2515,7 @@ int proc_dointvec_unsigned(struct ctl_ta
>>  {
>>        struct do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param param = {
>>                .min = &zero,
>> +               .max = (int *) table->extra2,
>>        };
>>        return do_proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos,
>>                                do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv, &param);
>
> This is still buggybecause "zero" is only 1 variable and max can be an array.
> Sysctl boundary comparisons are done element-by-element.

Where's the array use case?

-- 
Regards
dave

Re: + sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch added to -mm tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:51:50 +0800
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM,  <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c~sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update
> >> +++ a/kernel/sysctl.c
> >> @@ -2515,6 +2515,7 @@ int proc_dointvec_unsigned(struct ctl_ta
> >>  {
> >>        struct do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param param = {
> >>                .min = &zero,
> >> +               .max = (int *) table->extra2,
> >>        };
> >>        return do_proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos,
> >>                                do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv, &param);
> >
> > This is still buggybecause "zero" is only 1 variable and max can be an array.
> > Sysctl boundary comparisons are done element-by-element.
> 
> Where's the array use case?

Guys, these patches:

sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_bool-handler.patch
sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_bool-where-appropriate.patch
sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler.patch
sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch
sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_unsigned-where-appropriate.patch

are still floating about in my tree, and stuck.

As everyone has forgotten all about it I think I'll just drop the
patches.  If you're still motivated, please resend from scratch and
let's take another look at them.  And this time please let's drive the
discussion to a conclusion and not leave stuff floating around
unresolved for months?

Re: + sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch added to -mm tree

[Dave Young]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:51:50 +0800
> Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM,  <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c~sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update
>> >> +++ a/kernel/sysctl.c
>> >> @@ -2515,6 +2515,7 @@ int proc_dointvec_unsigned(struct ctl_ta
>> >>  {
>> >>        struct do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param param = {
>> >>                .min = &zero,
>> >> +               .max = (int *) table->extra2,
>> >>        };
>> >>        return do_proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos,
>> >>                                do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv, &param);
>> >
>> > This is still buggybecause "zero" is only 1 variable and max can be an array.
>> > Sysctl boundary comparisons are done element-by-element.
>>
>> Where's the array use case?
>
> Guys, these patches:
>
> sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_bool-handler.patch
> sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_bool-where-appropriate.patch
> sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler.patch
> sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch
> sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_unsigned-where-appropriate.patch
>
> are still floating about in my tree, and stuck.
>
> As everyone has forgotten all about it I think I'll just drop the
> patches.  If you're still motivated, please resend from scratch and
> let's take another look at them.  And this time please let's drive the
> discussion to a conclusion and not leave stuff floating around
> unresolved for months?
>

Sorry about that situation, Consider the alexey's concern maybe I will
 resend only the "bool" patches.

-- 
Regards
Yang RuiRui