On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 01/05/2015 03:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> 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. > > If we "validate" the arguments like you suggested, then a call like this: > > prctl(PR_MPX_DISABLE_MANAGEMENT); > > ends up returning -EINVAL: > >> prctl(0x2b /* PR_??? */, 0x7fffffd3, 0x7f360955e9e0, 0x2c, 0x7f3609314840) = >> -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument) > > A quick grep through ltp and some other source I have laying around does > *not* show folks adding 0's to these calls for "empty" arguments. Is > this really something we want to do? > > prctl(PR_MPX_DISABLE_MANAGEMENT, 0, 0, 0, 0);
Yes, because we might want to do prctl(PR_MPX_ENABLE_MANAGEMENT, x, y, z, 0) some day. --Andy -- 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/
