Subject: Re: [G[PATCH 1/2][ENETLINK] max cmd boundary chec

From: jamal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:54:08 -0500

On Fri, 2006-01-12 at 16:16 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:

> The interface enforces a proper value by the type it accepts which
> is certainly more desireable than a runtime error. 
> If you happen
> to ignore compiler warnings, then maybe there is the problem. 

It is easy to overlook compiler warnings. However, it is not an
excuse. 

> Despite
> of all this, the patch you propose doesn't work anyway.
> 
> If you really want a runtime error you have to change the cmd field
> in genl_ops to be of larger size and then just check > MAX_ARGS in
> register_ops() rather than making get_cmd() more expensive which
> is called for every message received. I don't see any reason why
> this should be better than a compile warning.

Ok, you make a good arguement. Lets just junk this patch. 

cheers,
jamal