Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:55:38 +0200
> Patrick McHardy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>>A really good fix would be to remove the binary side and then to
>>>modify brnf_sysctl_call_tables to allocate a temporary ctl_table and
>>>integer on the stack and only set ctl->data after we have normalized
>>>the written value. But since in practice nothing cares about
>>>the race a better fix probably isn't worth it.
>>
>>
>>I seem to be missing something, the entire brnf_sysctl_call_tables
>>thing looks purely cosmetic to me, wouldn't it be better to simply
>>remove it?
>
>
> I agree, removing seems like a better option. But probably need to go
> through a 3-6mo warning period, since sysctl's are technically an API.
I meant removing brnf_sysctl_call_tables function, not the sysctls
themselves, all it does is change values != 0 to 1. Or did you
actually mean that something in userspace might depend on reading
back the value 1 after writing a value != 0?
-
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]
