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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190328130306.25384-1-mcroce@redhat.com> <20190403140203.qq37rgcikvoawb5f@brauner.io>
 <CAGnkfhx+igF579dez6qwAxrtT-JrGSSEn-QmK+92447qBqXPpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190403155108.GI22763@bombadil.infradead.org> <CAGnkfhxBafq4KeR8Jp5XBd7yWrMiofmEwqsCpb_7eL+ddgWagw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnkfhxBafq4KeR8Jp5XBd7yWrMiofmEwqsCpb_7eL+ddgWagw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 19:08:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnkfhyY7QmrGEk-YF9w-X78dHSDOPQMYtxBkVnpb0MS8DkVhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/sysctl.c: fix out of bounds access in fs.file-max
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Zev Weiss <zev@bewilderbeest.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 6:40 PM Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:51 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 05:24:26PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 4:02 PM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
> > > > Yeah, maybe but it still feels cleaner and more obvious to just add:
> > > >
> > > > static long long_zero;
> > > >
> > > > given that most callers actually seem to want an (unsigned) int.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have a strong opinion though so if others feel that it's just a
> > > > waste of space consider it acked.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, given that the value is zero, in this expectional case we could
> > > avoid duplicating the symbol and save 4 bytes.
> > > What the maintainers think?
> >
> > If we care about saving four bytes, we could just pass the address of
> > ZERO_PAGE(0).
>
> That would work, work too, maybe it's a bit overkill.
> int zero is always there and it's static, so enlarging it to long
> should be a straightforward fix.
> Obviously we can't do it for other numbers, but we can alias it just
> for the zero case..
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Matteo Croce
> per aspera ad upstream

Anyway, I'm fine with both solutions, as I have other patches in the
queue which depends on this fix.

Regards,
-- 
Matteo Croce
per aspera ad upstream