Re: [PATCH] set*uid() must not fail-and-return on OOM/rlimits
From: Alan Cox
Date: Sun Aug 20 2006 - 15:10:30 EST
Ar Sul, 2006-08-20 am 21:01 +0200, ysgrifennodd Willy Tarreau:
> 2.4 has no printk_ratelimit() function and I'm not sure it's worth adding
> one for only this user. One could argue that once it's implemented, we can
> uncomment some other warnings that are currently disabled due to lack of
Agreed. But if it isnt ratelimited then people will be able to use it
flush other "interesting" log messages out of existance...
> In this special case (set*uid), the only reason we might fail is because
> kmem_cache_alloc(uid_cachep, SLAB_KERNEL) would return NULL. Do you think
> it could intentionnally be tricked into failing, or that under OOM we might
> bother about the excess of messages ?
> If so I can backport the printk_ratelimit() function, I would just like an
> advice on this.
If there are multiple potential users then a backport might be sensible
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/