From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:51:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:50:57 -0500 Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de ([194.39.131.53]:59344 "EHLO smtpde02.sap-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:50:42 -0500 To: Alan Cox Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds), adam@yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter), parsley@roanoke.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel) Subject: Re: Patch (repost): cramfs memory corruption fix In-Reply-To: From: Christoph Rohland Date: 08 Jan 2001 15:49:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: Alan Cox's message of "Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:42:18 +0000 (GMT)" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Alan, On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > I have been thinking about this. I think we should merge the size > limiting code with the example clean ramfs code. Having spent a > while debugging the LFS checks and some other funnies I realised one > problem with the ramfs in 2.4.0 as an example. It does not > demonstrate error cases, which the new one does. For demonstration purposes perhaps. But I do not see a lot of value of using ramfs if shmem could do read and write. Greetings Christoph - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/