lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Set bounds on what /proc/self/make-it-fail accepts.
From
2014-02-19 8:27 GMT+09:00 Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:32:02PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > > /proc/self/make-it-fail is a boolean, but accepts any number, including
> > > negative ones. Change variable to unsigned, and cap upper bound at 1.
> >
> > Hmm, this would break anything that uses anything other than one to enable
> > it, but it looks like Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.txt
> > only provides an example for when it does equal one, so it's probably an
> > ok change. I'm just wondering why non-zero is wrong? Is this an
> > interface that will be extended to support other modes?
>
> "Wrong" is perhaps too strong a word, but we only ever check it for non-zero state,
> so it seems at best suboptimal to allow strange configurations.
>
> When I saw I could set it to nonsense values like -1, I figured it could
> use some idiot proofing. The lack of any checking at all surprised me.
>
> Future extension of this interface seems unlikely given the boolean sounding name.
> (Though we've done that in the past with things like the overcommit_memory sysctl,
> with pretty awful end-user results).

I don't have any plans to extend /proc/self/make-it-fail to support
other than 0 or 1. So I have no objection against this change.

Reviewed-by: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-19 15:22    [W:0.041 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site