> On Jun 6, 2018, at 6:22 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Ilya Matveychikov writes:
>
>>> On Jun 5, 2018, at 11:56 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ilya Matveychikov writes:
>>>
>>>> Just CC’ed to some of m
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 11:56 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Ilya Matveychikov writes:
>
>> Just CC’ed to some of maintainers.
>>
>> $ perl scripts/get_maintainer.pl
>> fs/0001-ksys_mount-check-for-permissions-before-resource-all.patch
>> Alexan
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 4:28 PM, David Sterba wrote:
>
>> BTW, sys_umount() has this check in the right place - before doing anything.
>> So, why not to have the same logic for mount/umount?
>
> What if the check is not equivalent to the one done later? may_mount
> needs namespace, it will be ava
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:35:55PM +0400, Ilya Matveychikov wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 5, 2018, at 6:00 AM, Ilya Matveychikov
>>
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2018, at 6:00 AM, Ilya Matveychikov
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Early check for mount permissions prevents possible allocation of 3
>>> pages from kmalloc() pool by unpriveledged u
@vger.kernel.org (open list)
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 6:00 AM, Ilya Matveychikov wrote:
>
> Early check for mount permissions prevents possible allocation of 3
> pages from kmalloc() pool by unpriveledged user which can be used for
> spraying the kernel heap.
>
> Signed-off-by:
Early check for mount permissions prevents possible allocation of 3
pages from kmalloc() pool by unpriveledged user which can be used for
spraying the kernel heap.
Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov
---
fs/namespace.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/na
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:22 PM, Ben Hutchings
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 12:30 +0400, Ilya Matveychikov wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Please review the approach of using small fixed-sized arrays to improve
>> parsing of values like get_options() does.
>
> On Jun 29, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Ben Hutchings
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 14:49 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>
>> ------
>>
>&
Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov
---
net/core/dev.c | 20
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 8515f8f..acda9ac 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -144,6 +144,7 @@
#include
#include
#incl
Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov
---
include/linux/small_array.h | 35 +++
lib/Makefile| 2 +-
lib/cmdline.c | 4 +++-
lib/ksmall_array.c | 26 ++
4 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Hi guys,
Please review the approach of using small fixed-sized arrays to improve
parsing of values like get_options() does.
This comes to me after fixing an overflow in get_options(). See the thread
for details: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/22/581
If the approach is OK I’ll suggest to replace al
> On Aug 21, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> I wasn't sure how get_options() worked, so I looked at examples. And by
> sheer chance the first example I picked the only example which uses it
> incorrectly... I've added some comments that hopefully help.
>
See also comments on my pa
When using get_options() it's possible to specify a range of numbers,
like 1-100500. The problem is that it doesn't track array size while
calling internally to get_range() which iterates over the range and
fills the memory with numbers.
Signed-off-by: Ilya V. Matveychikov
---
lib/cmdline.c | 6
14 matches
Mail list logo