On 04/30/2018 06:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> I like this series overall, thanks! No objections from me. One thing I
> noted, though:
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> if (param->min && *param->min > val) {
>> if
On 04/30/2018 06:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> I like this series overall, thanks! No objections from me. One thing I
> noted, though:
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> if (param->min && *param->min > val) {
>> if (clamp) {
>>
I like this series overall, thanks! No objections from me. One thing I
noted, though:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> if (param->min && *param->min > val) {
> if (clamp) {
> val =
I like this series overall, thanks! No objections from me. One thing I
noted, though:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> if (param->min && *param->min > val) {
> if (clamp) {
> val = *param->min;
> +
Even with clamped sysctl parameters, it is still not that straight
forward to figure out the exact range of those parameters. One may
try to write extreme parameter values to see if they get clamped.
To make it easier, a warning with the expected range will now be
printed into the kernel ring
Even with clamped sysctl parameters, it is still not that straight
forward to figure out the exact range of those parameters. One may
try to write extreme parameter values to see if they get clamped.
To make it easier, a warning with the expected range will now be
printed into the kernel ring
6 matches
Mail list logo