"David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>From: Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 03 Nov 2000 19:53:04 -0800
>
>Yes I agree, mixing signed and unsigned arithmetic is evil... Doesn't
>gcc have a flag for unsafe signed/unsigned mixtures ?
>
>Would you consider
"David S. Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03 Nov 2000 19:53:04 -0800
Yes I agree, mixing signed and unsigned arithmetic is evil... Doesn't
gcc have a flag for unsafe signed/unsigned mixtures ?
Would you consider this patch
From: Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Nov 2000 19:53:04 -0800
Yes I agree, mixing signed and unsigned arithmetic is evil... Doesn't
gcc have a flag for unsafe signed/unsigned mixtures ?
Would you consider this patch (or a variant) for inclusion ?
I would accept a
I found this in all 2.2.x kernels, and it might possibly be present in
2.4.x too...
When receiving file descriptors via recvmsg(), scm_detach_fds() in
net/core/scm.c can overflow user space data at msg_control if
msg_controllen is less than sizeof(struct cmsghdr).
This is a security problem.
I found this in all 2.2.x kernels, and it might possibly be present in
2.4.x too...
When receiving file descriptors via recvmsg(), scm_detach_fds() in
net/core/scm.c can overflow user space data at msg_control if
msg_controllen is less than sizeof(struct cmsghdr).
This is a security problem.
From: Philippe Troin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 03 Nov 2000 19:53:04 -0800
Yes I agree, mixing signed and unsigned arithmetic is evil... Doesn't
gcc have a flag for unsafe signed/unsigned mixtures ?
Would you consider this patch (or a variant) for inclusion ?
I would accept a patch
6 matches
Mail list logo
