[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] tun: add ioctl to modify vnet header size
    On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 03:02:44PM -0700, David Stevens wrote:
    > wrote on 03/17/2010 02:35:04 PM:
    > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:10:11PM -0700, David Stevens wrote:
    > > > Shouldn't we enforce a maximum too? Esp. if overflow/underflow
    > > > will break any of the checks when it's used.
    > > >
    > > > +-DLS
    > >
    > > So the maximum is MAX_INT :)
    > > I don't think it can break any checks that aren't
    > > already broken - what do you have in mind?
    > I was thinking more like a page. At least, it'd be better
    > to fail when trying to set it large than failing allocations
    > later. As a header, it really ought to be small.
    > But if it works, or fails gracefully, at 2^31-1 on 32-bit
    > machines, negative values, etc, then it's ok. Just a suggestion.
    > +-DLS

    All this does is set how much of the buffer to skip, this option does
    not allocate any memory. So if you set it to a value > length that you
    passed in, you get -EINVAL. Anything else should work. Negative values
    are checked for and return -EINVAL when you try to set it. At least,
    all that's by design - pls take a look at the code and if you see any
    issues, speak up please.

    I agree we don't really need to support very large values here,
    it just seemed less work.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-17 23:19    [W:0.034 / U:31.972 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site