lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: bug in kernel/sysctl.c (SYSIPC) ?
Date
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:51:17 +0100 (CET) Der Herr Hofrat <der.herr@hofr.at> wrote:
>
> | atleast in kernel 2.4.19 and 2.4.20 in kernel/sysctl.c shmmax and shmall use
> | the proc_dointvec_minmax callback without passing a min/max value - is there
> | a reson for this or is this a simple bug ?
> |
> | linux/kenrel/sysctl.c (line 221 for 2.4.19/20)
> |
> | #ifdef CONFIG_SYSVIPC
> | {KERN_SHMMAX, "shmmax", &shm_ctlmax, sizeof (size_t),
> | 0644, NULL, &proc_doulongvec_minmax},
> | {KERN_SHMALL, "shmall", &shm_ctlall, sizeof (size_t),
> | 0644, NULL, &proc_doulongvec_minmax},
> | ...
> | #endif
>
> The min and max values default to 0 if not specified (initialized),
> and the _minmax functions have code to handle those cases.
>
> so as long as the intended min/max values were 0, I don't see a
> problem. Are you seeing a problem?
>

not directly a problem - my assumption was that shmmax would be bounded in some
way - currently you can write any value into /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax - and I
don't think that the inteded behavior of this is to permit any value - or if
it is - what is the point of using the _minimax and not simple proc_doulongvec ?

hofrat
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.034 / U:3.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site