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;
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 14:59:28 +0200
To:     William Kucharski <william.kucharski@oracle.com>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        jroedel@suse.de, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Sanitize __get_vm_area() arguments
Message-ID: <20200406125928.GA23653@pc636>
References: <D25C4027-6EF9-44C2-AD4D-DDC785288B9A@oracle.com>
 <20200404185229.GA424@pc636>
 <EEB53CBF-0B3F-43E0-94F6-B001918BAC3E@oracle.com>
 <20200405172315.GA8404@pc636>
 <20200405192108.GA9429@pc636>
 <65663E36-DC60-4E6E-B6C6-3A0F6852543D@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <65663E36-DC60-4E6E-B6C6-3A0F6852543D@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 02:49:13PM -0600, William Kucharski wrote:
> That's fine.
> 
> One could still argue size should be sanitized earlier when start and end
> are, but it's a nit either way (though size is used before it's checked,
> it's not in any way that could fail with bad results.)
> 
Agree. Therefore i do not have a strong opinion here, so it
basically depends on how to look at it :)

--
Vlad Rezki