On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 01/05/2015 03:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> > Yeah, I'd _really_ prefer not to change it. The code is in a gcc >>> > branch, but is getting pulled in to the 5.0 release. We've got >>> > *absolutely* no shortage of prctl numbers. >> We do, however, have a severe shortage of sanity in the prctl implementation. >> >> Anyway, if it's actually a problem to change it, I have no real >> problem keeping it, but I think we *really* need to validate the rest >> of the arguments at the very least. > > Do you mean just adding a pair of > > if (arg2 || arg3 || arg4 || arg5) > return -EINVAL; > > checks?
Exactly. Thanks, Andy > > That's perfectly fine with me. I'm happy to queue up a patch to do just > that if that's what you're going for. -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
