Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:24:51 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
        manfred@colorfullife.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] ipc: IPCMNI limit check for *mni & increase that
 limit
Message-Id: <20180906152451.e8c6ff58a867646ff5209cfc@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180817165008.GB32382@linux-r8p5>
References: <1529317698-16575-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
        <20180817165008.GB32382@linux-r8p5>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:50:08 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:

> >Enforcing the range limit check may cause some existing applications to break
> >if they unwittingly set a value higher than 32k. To allow system administrators
> >to work around this issue, a new ipcmni_compat sysctl parameter can now be set
> >to restore the old behavior. This compatibility mode can only be set if the
> >ipcmni_extend boot parameter is not specified. Patch 5 implements this new
> >sysctl parameter.
> >
> >Waiman Long (5):
> >  ipc: IPCMNI limit check for msgmni and shmmni
> >  ipc: IPCMNI limit check for semmni
> 
> I've reviewed the first two which look good and are actual immediate fixes
> to the bogus user input. I haven't gotten around yet the rest of the patches
> but are at least a bit more controversial than the first two. As such, could
> patch 1 and 2 be picked up once the merge window closes, for v4.20? Although
> -stable might want in, this situation is quite historic, so it's not that
> urgent.

Thanks.  Could we please have a refresh and resend?  Hopefully Luis
will have time for another pass.