On 03/12/2018 04:59 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 04:54:51PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 03/12/2018 04:46 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 04:15:40PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> Checking code is added to check for invalid flags in the ctl_table
>>>> and return error if an unknown flag is used.
>>> This should be merged with the first patch otherwise there are atomic
>>> points in time on the commit log history where invalid values are allowed
>>> and that makes no sense.
>>>
>>> This can probably be expanded to verify semantics further. Details
>>> below.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
>>>> index 493c975..67c0c82 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
>>>> @@ -1092,6 +1092,16 @@ static int sysctl_check_table_array(const char *path, struct ctl_table *table)
>>>> return err;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int sysctl_check_flags(const char *path, struct ctl_table *table)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int err = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (table->flags & ~CTL_TABLE_FLAGS_ALL)
>>>> + err = sysctl_err(path, table, "invalid flags");
>>> What if a range for the upper limit is set but not the lower limit and
>>> the user goes over the lower limit?
>>>
>>> How about the inverse?
>>>
>>> Do we need both ranges set?
>>>
>>> Luis
>> This check is just to make sure that no invalid flag bit is set. Range
>> clamping is just one of flag bits, though this is the only one currently
>> supported. In fact, it is allowed that the minimum or maximum can be
>> left unspecified. In this case, no minimum or maximum checking will be
>> done. So I don't see anything related to range checking should be put here.
> What if minimum is greater than maximum?
>
> Luis
Yes, you are right. That is a valid check. I am going to add that in the
next patch.
Cheers,
Longman
