Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, trini@kernel.crashing.org
In-Reply-To: <20060318120728.63cbad54.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <20060318142827.419018000@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20060318142830.607556000@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20060318120728.63cbad54.akpm@osdl.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:16:15 +0100
Message-Id: <1142712975.17279.131.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 815
Lines: 22

On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 12:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> From my reading, 2.4's sys_setitimer() will normalise the incoming timeval
> rather than rejecting it.  And I think 2.6.13 did that too.
> 
> It would be bad of us to change this behaviour, even if that's what the
> spec says we should do - because we can break existing applications.
> 
> So I think we're stuck with it - we should normalise and then accept such
> timevals.  And we should have a big comment explaining how we differ from
> the spec, and why.

Hmm. How do you treat a negative value ?

	tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/