From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:52850 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755453AbeCSPjU (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:39:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] sysctl: Add flags to support min/max range clamping To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Kees Cook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Matthew Wilcox , "Eric W. Biederman" References: <1521224030-2185-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <1521224030-2185-2-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20180317011021.GB4449@wotan.suse.de> From: Waiman Long Message-ID: <35f54e8f-b80e-aa3b-b008-79ba7ca3bff2@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:39:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180317011021.GB4449@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/16/2018 09:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> When the CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE flag is set in the ctl_table >> entry, any update from the userspace will be clamped to the given >> range without error if either the proc_dointvec_minmax() or the >> proc_douintvec_minmax() handlers is used. > I don't get it. Why define a generic range flag when we can be mores specific and > you do that in your next patch. What's the point of this flag then? > > Luis I was thinking about using the signed/unsigned bits as just annotations for ranges for future extension. For the purpose of this patchset alone, I can merge the three bits into just two. Cheers, Longman