Re: [PATCH RFC] tun: add ioctl to modify vnet header size

[David Stevens]

netdev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 03/17/2010 02:35:04 PM:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:10:11PM -0700, David Stevens wrote:
> > Shouldn't we enforce a maximum too? Esp. if overflow/underflow
> > will break any of the checks when it's used.
> > 
> >                                 +-DLS
> 
> So the maximum is MAX_INT :)
> I don't think it can break any checks that aren't
> already broken - what do you have in mind?

        I was thinking more like a page. At least, it'd be better
to fail when trying to set it large than failing allocations
later. As a header, it really ought to be small.
        But if it works, or fails gracefully, at 2^31-1 on 32-bit
machines, negative values, etc, then it's ok. Just a suggestion.

                                                        +-DLS

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/