From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: wither bounds checking for networking sysctls Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:14:53 -0700 Message-ID: <46D84C8D.4070009@hp.com> References: <46D76A3D.9090207@hp.com> <20070830205939.2f85a567@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linux Network Development list To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from palrel10.hp.com ([156.153.255.245]:56320 "EHLO palrel10.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965417AbXHaRPc (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:15:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070830205939.2f85a567@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:09:17 -0700 > Rick Jones wrote: > > >>While messing about with "sysctl_tcp_rto_min" I went back and forth a >>bit as to whether there should have been bounds checking (as did some of >>the folks who did some internal review for me). That leads to the >>question - is it considered worthwhile to add a bit more bounds checking >>to sundry networking sysctls? >> >>rick jones > > > IMHO As long as the any value from sysctl doesn't crash kernel, we > should let it go. Enforcing RFC policy or inter-dependencies seems > likes a useless exercise. I was thinking more along the lines of more fundamental things - like precluding negative values when something is clearly a positive. rick jones