On Fri, 5 Oct 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 10/02/2018 10:58 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> >>
> >> +void arch_set_dumpable(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm, int
> >> value)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!static_branch_unlikely(&spectre_v2_app_lite))
> >> + return;
> >> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP))
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + if ((unsigned) value != SUID_DUMP_USER) {
> >
> > First of all we use unsigned int and not unsigned, Aside of that why is the
> > argument not unsigned int right away?
>
>
> The original set_dumpable passes suid_dumpable, which was
> exposed via /proc/sys/fs/suid_dumpable and defined as int.
> It will make sense to define suid_dumpable as an unsigned int instead.
>
> Would you like me to redefine suid_dumpable as unsigned int
> in sysctl.c in the patch revision as a separate clean up patch?
Yes, that makes sense.
Thanks,
tglx
