Re: [PATCH 1/1] cifs: potential memory leaks when parsing mnt opts

2015-03-21 Thread Scott Lovenberg
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Taesoo Kim wrote: > On 03/21/15 at 09:10pm, Scott Lovenberg wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Taesoo Kim wrote: >> >> > Althouhg mkfs.cifs in userspace performs a bit of sanitization >> > (e.g., forcing one user optio

Re: [PATCH 1/1] cifs: potential memory leaks when parsing mnt opts

2015-03-21 Thread Scott Lovenberg
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Taesoo Kim wrote: > Althouhg mkfs.cifs in userspace performs a bit of sanitization > (e.g., forcing one user option), current implementation is not > robust. Other options such as iocharset and domainanme are similary > vulnerable. > I assume you mean mount.cifs?

Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX) locks

2013-12-19 Thread Scott Lovenberg
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > This patchset is the fourth posting of this set. Behavior between this > set and the last should be more or less the same. Here is a summary of > changes: > > Go, Jeff, go! Seriously, it's awesome you're bringing the UNPOSIX locking code for

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX) locks

2013-10-12 Thread Scott Lovenberg
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:18:58 -0400 > Scott Lovenberg wrote: > >> >> On Oct 11, 2013, at 19:49, Jeremy Allison wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:36:43 -0600 Andreas Dilger >> > wrote: >&

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX) locks

2013-10-11 Thread Scott Lovenberg
On Oct 11, 2013, at 19:49, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:36:43 -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: >>> >>> At this point, my main questions are: >>> >>> 1) does this look useful, particularly for fileserver implementors? > > Yes from the Samba perspective. We'll have to keep the old

Re: [052/121] cifs: extend the buffer length enought for sprintf() using

2013-09-08 Thread Scott Lovenberg
> buffer enough to hold all things. > > It is also necessary to be sure of 'ses->domainName' must be less than > 256, and define the related macro instead of hard code number '256'. > > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang > Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton > Reviewed-b

Re: [PATCH] cifs: remove the sockopt= mount option

2013-03-06 Thread Scott Lovenberg
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:08:30 -0600 > Steve French wrote: > >> Resending patch to a slightly broader list for last minute check if >> anyone objects. Although setting this particular socket option >> (TCP_NODELAY) may not be as useful when corki

Re: Documentation about sysfs/procfs entries]

2008-02-12 Thread Scott Lovenberg
Randy Dunlap wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:08:12 +0700 Mulyadi Santosa wrote: Hi all... Here's my idea: what if we collaborate to extend and make the kernel documentation better? I have done (slow) start by editing profile= kernel param. It's not accepted by Adrian Bunk, but at least I di

Re: Documentation about sysfs/procfs entries

2008-02-11 Thread Scott Lovenberg
On Feb 12, 2008 1:17 AM, Scott Lovenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2008 12:23 AM, Peter Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I was looking for documentation on the kstack_depth_to_print under > > /proc/sys/kerne