Re: [PATCH] getsockopt() early argument sanity checking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:43:07 +0200

> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 02:05:20AM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Not to me. It heavily violates codingstyle and screws brains
>                 ^^^^^^^
> little exageration detected here.
> > with the non-indented else branches.
> while they surprized me first, they make the *patch* more readable
> by clearly showing what has been inserted and where. However, I have
> joined the lines for the merge.

Thanks for consulting the networking maintainer before merging
this. :-/

What if some sockopt treats a negative length specially?
Maybe some setsockopt() doesn't care about the optlen pointer?

This toplevel code has no buisness interpreting the arguments when the
downcall and argument interpretation is by definition protocol
specific.  It also means we'll touch userspace twice for this value
which is really dumb.

The only nice part about this change is that it allows us to be lazy
about auditing the individual setsockopt() implementations.  I'd
rather fix the broken cases than add a patch which just assumes they
are broken and not worth fixing, and also imposes a convention for the
optlen argument.

No thanks.

And yes the coding style was totally unacceptable too.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux