Re: [PATCH 3/3] sysctl: Error on bad sysctl tables

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello.

In article <[email protected]> (at Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:09:29 -0600), [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) says:

> After going through the kernels sysctl tables several times it has
> become clear that code review and testing is just not effective in
> prevent problematic sysctl tables from being used in the stable
> kernel.  I certainly can't seem to fix the problems as fast as
> they are introduced.
:
> The biggest part of the code is the table of valid binary sysctl
> entries, but since we have frozen our set of binary sysctls this table
> should not need to change, and it makes it much easier to detect
> when someone unintentionally adds a new binary sysctl value.

I don't think everyone needs to have this code, so
it is better to make it configurable via
CONFIG_SYSCTL_DEBUG or something..., ...no?

--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux