netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [-mm PATCH] signed vs unsigned cleanup in net/ipv4/raw.c
From: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:28:23 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: juhl-lkml@xxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, waltje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ross.biro@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050615.121628.112622743.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0506152101350.3842@dragon.hyggekrogen.localhost> <20050615.121628.112622743.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, David S. Miller wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 

Fair enough, I'll split it into little bits and submit them one by one 
with explanations. Not a problem at all.

-- 
Jesper Juhl



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>