Re: [PATCH -mm] Don't truncate /proc/PID/environ at 4096 characters

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 4:46 pm

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:35:29 +0100
"James Pearson" <james-p@moving-picture.com> wrote:


patch needs to be carefully reviewed from the security POV (ie: permissions)
as well as for correctness.  Does anyone have time to do that?


Now I wonder what inspired you to reach for GFP_TEMPORARY?  Perhaps the
fact that it is crappily named and undocumented.

This should be GFP_KERNEL - the page you're allocating here is not
reclaimable by the VM.


Now that's a funky loop.  Someone please convince me that there is no way
in which `count - retval' can ever go negative (ie: huge positive).


-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH -mm] Don't truncate /proc/PID/environ at 4096 c ..., Andrew Morton, (Thu Sep 20, 4:46 pm)