On 05/02/2018 11:06 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>>> and or users that may or may not exist. If you can find something that
>>> will care sure. We need to avoid breaking userspace and causing
>>> regressions. However as this stands it looks you are making maintenance
>>> of the kernel more dif
Waiman Long writes:
> On 05/01/2018 10:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> The sysctl parameters msgmni, shmmni and semmni have an inherent limit
>>> of IPC_MNI (32k). However, users may not be aware of that because they
>>> can write a value much higher than that without getting any error or
On 05/01/2018 10:18 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> The sysctl parameters msgmni, shmmni and semmni have an inherent limit
>> of IPC_MNI (32k). However, users may not be aware of that because they
>> can write a value much higher than that without getting any error or
>> notification. Reading the
> The sysctl parameters msgmni, shmmni and semmni have an inherent limit
> of IPC_MNI (32k). However, users may not be aware of that because they
> can write a value much higher than that without getting any error or
> notification. Reading the parameters back will show the newly written
> values
v5->v6:
- Consolidate the 3 ctl_table flags into 2.
- Make similar changes to proc_doulongvec_minmax() and its associates
to complete the clamping change.
- Remove the sysctl registration failure test patch for now for later
consideration.
- Add extra braces to patch 1 to reduce code diff
