From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 880EBE552; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730746961; cv=none; b=RjEt4RgE6PrN6s0V9E1ViQGzhkD/o3ds1ehbxTSirVL8G/0Wr+0RX2o8RnBZUWZRnimfx36tqHdNitwnRNzqp4ShtTElYlQKEIEgj9t77IzpWnCf8Tf90WRmzFJphTcY4bJfiDyiyepDf9c0d6NasmpJHbNg5BsSzpdD2viNrSk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730746961; c=relaxed/simple; bh=y6B0iq3IlGbxWPuuUX1NOdOXo+3wsNpEGsISvxpuj6o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=B+kRkywWdeeNHxBZnh0DtL+UnKStYwKrEJHMEdwk5a6evsMdh8pfSlSLqb3VLPxoWcAkUcbyV3X4GOPwNXdqVBrPTudSZGkU17twKArgK2N1LTfVDM2yq/xTYzxGNI+sfazX/+qXCRWZj0Ycl0c3iWZI8KPOgApcLRUaSJZEBjk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mwLHjLWo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mwLHjLWo" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68053C4CECE; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:02:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1730746961; bh=y6B0iq3IlGbxWPuuUX1NOdOXo+3wsNpEGsISvxpuj6o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mwLHjLWo4WwNMOAs5HED/NiNPDGI9opYahanawVZb248gHId4p9dAjUsbRJGUSn1k kEA9cVdayqRXOJslu41SQYKo5jMQFSp1BjIEnyNDU/WL+8agI6ii4+7IgrfIXtB8w4 FEviOlA5VRNvfRfI2N4QRHRFNVlEq53Fnf0gZCdvV+YT16LG7G/Mvhs8JsdGftNE+p b6q9DVKgERZfm6UGw+5X215dZX9DhuGOo0V+9AQNYHApe9pfNUm6Myd2tN85UbWEqd ZPFctCYunpEYgkg87d6PW1oc7+QZIND9fbZqZmFxr+wbU0ch0cjrnu96/7LqcQJUu7 bchT2/XOA1jfA== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:02:35 +0100 From: Alexey Gladkov To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Roman Gushchin , Andrei Vagin , "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: restore the override_rlimit logic Message-ID: References: <20241031200438.2951287-1-roman.gushchin@linux.dev> <87zfmi3f8b.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <87o72y3c4g.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <20241103165048.GA11668@redhat.com> <20241104184442.GA26235@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241104184442.GA26235@redhat.com> On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 07:44:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/04, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 05:50:49PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > But it seems that the change in inc_rlimit_get_ucounts() can be > > > a bit simpler and more readable, see below. > > > > Eric suggested the same approach earlier in this thread. > > Ah, good, I didn't know ;) > > > I personally > > don't have a strong preference here or actually I slightly prefer my > > own version because this comparison to LONG_MAX looks confusing to me. > > But if you have a strong preference, I'm happy to send out v2. Please, > > let me know. > > Well, I won't insist. > > To me the change proposed by Eric and me looks much more readable, but > of course this is subjective. > > But you know, you can safely ignore me. Alexey and Eric understand this > code much better, so I leave this to you/Alexey/Eric. Personally, I like Oleg's patch more. -- Rgrds, legion