Re: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace

On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 12:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> From my reading, 2.4's sys_setitimer() will normalise the incoming timeval
> rather than rejecting it.  And I think 2.6.13 did that too.
> 
> It would be bad of us to change this behaviour, even if that's what the
> spec says we should do - because we can break existing applications.
> 
> So I think we're stuck with it - we should normalise and then accept such
> timevals.  And we should have a big comment explaining how we differ from
> the spec, and why.

Hmm. How do you treat a negative value ?

	tglx


-
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: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 0/2] sys_setitimer and sys_alarm hotfixes
    • From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
  • [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace
    • From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 2/2] alarm unsigned signed conversion fixup
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.16-rc6-mm2
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace
• 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]