From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756806AbcHVTit (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:38:49 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f67.google.com ([209.85.220.67]:34124 "EHLO mail-pa0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756288AbcHVTiq (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:38:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] pipe: fix limit checking in pipe_set_size() To: Willy Tarreau References: <67ce15aa-cf43-0c89-d079-2d966177c56d@gmail.com> <7f0732a9-6172-e92d-7c5b-473b769fe37e@gmail.com> <20160819054818.GH17944@1wt.eu> <60022222-ced6-85d4-77bb-bf8bf8ce668b@gmail.com> <20160821213541.GA3864@1wt.eu> Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Andrew Morton , Vegard Nossum , socketpair@gmail.com, Tetsuo Handa , Jens Axboe , Al Viro , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Message-ID: <9b60a7ae-1bb5-16de-727f-78237ab9a89b@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 07:37:55 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160821213541.GA3864@1wt.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Willy, On 08/22/2016 09:35 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:15:35AM +1200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> Hi Willy, >> >> Might you have a chance to further review of this patch series? >> It would be great if you could, since much of it touches changes >> made by you earlier. > > Well, all I did there was implementing a suggestion from Linus, but I'm > not a specialist at all there. However I've read all your series and at > least with my limited knowledge, all I've read seems to make sense at > the code matches the descriptions. I don't remember any particular trap > in this place so I'm not worried. Okay. > I remember that I noticed this inaccuracy in the accounting but I > estimated it was not important since the goal was to *limit* resource > usage with a simple patch that we could easily backport. Your approach > looks clean and possibly backportable if needed. That's all I can say > I'm afraid :-/ No problem. Thanks for the reply! Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] pipe: fix limit checking in pipe_set_size() Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 07:37:55 +1200 Message-ID: <9b60a7ae-1bb5-16de-727f-78237ab9a89b@gmail.com> References: <67ce15aa-cf43-0c89-d079-2d966177c56d@gmail.com> <7f0732a9-6172-e92d-7c5b-473b769fe37e@gmail.com> <20160819054818.GH17944@1wt.eu> <60022222-ced6-85d4-77bb-bf8bf8ce668b@gmail.com> <20160821213541.GA3864@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160821213541.GA3864-K+wRfnb2/UA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Willy Tarreau Cc: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Vegard Nossum , socketpair-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Tetsuo Handa , Jens Axboe , Al Viro , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Hi Willy, On 08/22/2016 09:35 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:15:35AM +1200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> Hi Willy, >> >> Might you have a chance to further review of this patch series? >> It would be great if you could, since much of it touches changes >> made by you earlier. > > Well, all I did there was implementing a suggestion from Linus, but I'm > not a specialist at all there. However I've read all your series and at > least with my limited knowledge, all I've read seems to make sense at > the code matches the descriptions. I don't remember any particular trap > in this place so I'm not worried. Okay. > I remember that I noticed this inaccuracy in the accounting but I > estimated it was not important since the goal was to *limit* resource > usage with a simple patch that we could easily backport. Your approach > looks clean and possibly backportable if needed. That's all I can say > I'm afraid :-/ No problem. Thanks for the reply! Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/