On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > @@ -763,15 +767,17 @@ > > * using the inode number. > > */ > > error = -ENOMEM; > > - sprintf(name, "[%lu]", inode->i_ino); > > this.name = name; > > - this.len = strlen(name); > > - this.hash = inode->i_ino; > > + this.len = sprintf(name, "[%p]", ep); > > + this.hash = 0; > > Please don't expose kernel pointers to user space. > > It's much better to do something like > > static unsigned int epoll_inode; > > this.len = sprintf(name, "[%u]", ++epoll_inode); > > if you just need some pseudo-unique name to distinguish two epoll things > from each other (vs from a dup'ed fd).
Heh, this is what Al was saying ;) I'm fine with that, but how about counter cycles (going back to zero)? Should we care to handle them correctly? - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
