YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[email protected]> writes:
> 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?
I wouldn't reject such a patch. We are a ways out from the next
stable kernel merge window and I'd love to see what else falls out so
I'd like to have it on by default for a bit.
Eric
-
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]
