Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c

I'm not merging this thing, at least no all at once.

"size_t" vs. "unsigned int" vs. "int" length comparisons are where all
the security problems come from in the protocol stack

Therefore you should make a seperate patch for each type
change you make and explain why it doesn't add some regression
in terms of signedness issues.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c
  - From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

References:
- [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c
  - From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] aio_down() for i386 and x86_64
Next by Date: Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c
Previous by thread: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c
Next by thread: Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]