On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Checking code is added to provide the following additional
> ctl_table.flags checks:
>
> 1) No unknown flag is allowed.
> 2) Minimum of a range cannot be larger than the maximum value.
> 3) The signed and unsigned flags are mutually exclusive.
> 4) The proc_handler should be consistent with the signed or unsigned
> flags.
>
> Two new flags are added to indicate if the min/max values are signed
> or unsigned - CTL_FLAGS_SIGNED_RANGE & CTL_FLAGS_UNSIGNED_RANGE.
> These 2 flags can be optionally enabled for range checking purpose.
> But either one of them must be set with CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <long...@redhat.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/include/linux/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> index e446e1f..088f032 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> @@ -134,14 +134,26 @@ struct ctl_table
> * the input value. No lower bound or upper bound checking will be
> * done if the corresponding minimum or maximum value isn't provided.
> *
> + * @CTL_FLAGS_SIGNED_RANGE: Set to indicate that the extra1 and extra2
> + * fields are pointers to minimum and maximum signed values of
> + * an allowable range.
> + *
> + * @CTL_FLAGS_UNSIGNED_RANGE: Set to indicate that the extra1 and extra2
> + * fields are pointers to minimum and maximum unsigned values of
> + * an allowable range.
> + *
> * At most 16 different flags are allowed.
> */
> enum ctl_table_flags {
> CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE = BIT(0),
> - __CTL_FLAGS_MAX = BIT(1),
> + CTL_FLAGS_SIGNED_RANGE = BIT(1),
> + CTL_FLAGS_UNSIGNED_RANGE = BIT(2),
> + __CTL_FLAGS_MAX = BIT(3),
> };
You are adding new flags which the user can set, and yet these are used
internally.
It would be best if internal flags are just that, not flags that a user can set.
This patch should be folded with the first one.
I'm starting to loose hope on these patch sets.
Luis
