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: <20190408220925.13077-1-mcroce@redhat.com> <20190408220925.13077-3-mcroce@redhat.com>
 <CAGXu5jKc2q3gnBrJ5JowDvOC_tSR5o9iKuF+JVKMJYWAPOZANQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGnkfhwZEqX03H7PqsSTa=GVwZXX127hQO5YHzJasAEYtpLMZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5j+0sAc2fHTuYwYTLoHPDbnfxYuAEJ+tRfgc2Z5DDqp9Jg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnkfhxPZJXmnPJ+k8nGPCBNeDBM_=rN+kEea-Uyq0zfCt0MXg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnkfhxPZJXmnPJ+k8nGPCBNeDBM_=rN+kEea-Uyq0zfCt0MXg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 15:34:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKf8ezMOxMn3P8DW+0GQrdkmno8_qxgQtxBD98cP3MRKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: use sysctl shared variables for range check
To:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:30 PM Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:51 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:24 PM Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 8:46 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:09 PM Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Use the shared variables for range check, instead of declaring a local one
> > > > > in every source file.
> > > >
> > > > I was expecting this to be a tree-wide change for all the cases found
> > > > by patch 1's "git grep".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Kees,
> > >
> > > I have already the whole patch ready, but I was frightened by the
> > > output of get_maintainer.pl, so I decided to split the patch into
> > > small pieces and send the first one.
> >
> > Heh, sounds fine. Normally the big tree-wide changes go via Linus just
> > before cutting rc1 (or rc2). This is "only" 31 source files, though,
> > so maybe akpm wants to take these instead? Andrew, how do you feel
> > about that?
> >
>
> FYI, this are the stats from my local repo, just to let you the size
> of a series with all the changes in it:
>
> $ git --no-pager log --stat --oneline linus/master
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>  6 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>  3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>  12 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 116 deletions(-)
>  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)

Tiny! :) Seriously, though, I think this should be fine to take
directly to Linus after patch 1 lands, or see if akpm wants to carry
it directly.

-- 
Kees Cook