From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261466AbVFOTXD (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:23:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261467AbVFOTXD (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:23:03 -0400 Received: from mail.dif.dk ([193.138.115.101]:24783 "EHLO saerimmer.dif.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261466AbVFOTXA (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:23:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:28:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Juhl To: "David S. Miller" Cc: juhl-lkml@dif.dk, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@redhat.com, waltje@uWalt.NL.Mugnet.ORG, ross.biro@gmail.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c In-Reply-To: <20050615.121628.112622743.davem@davemloft.net> Message-ID: References: <20050615.121628.112622743.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, David S. Miller wrote: > > I'm not merging this thing, at least no all at once. > > "size_t" vs. "unsigned int" vs. "int" length comparisons are where all > the security problems come from in the protocol stack > > Therefore you should make a seperate patch for each type > change you make and explain why it doesn't add some regression > in terms of signedness issues. > Fair enough, I'll split it into little bits and submit them one by one with explanations. Not a problem at all. -- Jesper Juhl