Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:52:13 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: + sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:51:50 +0800 Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM, <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c~sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update > >> +++ a/kernel/sysctl.c > >> @@ -2515,6 +2515,7 @@ int proc_dointvec_unsigned(struct ctl_ta > >> { > >> struct do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param param = { > >> .min = &zero, > >> + .max = (int *) table->extra2, > >> }; > >> return do_proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos, > >> do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv, ¶m); > > > > This is still buggybecause "zero" is only 1 variable and max can be an array. > > Sysctl boundary comparisons are done element-by-element. > > Where's the array use case?
Guys, these patches:
sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_bool-handler.patch sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_bool-where-appropriate.patch sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler.patch sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_unsigned-where-appropriate.patch
are still floating about in my tree, and stuck.
As everyone has forgotten all about it I think I'll just drop the patches. If you're still motivated, please resend from scratch and let's take another look at them. And this time please let's drive the discussion to a conclusion and not leave stuff floating around unresolved for months?
| |