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

netdev

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

To:	juhl-lkml@xxxxxx
Subject:	Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c
From:	"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:	yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, waltje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ross.biro@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0506152101350.3842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0506152101350.3842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

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.

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c, Jesper Juhl Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c, David S. Miller <= Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c, Jesper Juhl Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c, David S. Miller

Previous by Date:	[-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c, Jesper Juhl
Next by Date:	Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c, Jesper Juhl
Previous by Thread:	[-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c, Jesper Juhl
Next by Thread:	Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c, Jesper Juhl
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]