On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:07:24 +0200
Patrick McHardy <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
I was going farther, because don't really see the value of having
a sysctl for this. It seems better to just not load filters if
they aren't going to be used. Having another enable/disable hook
just adds needless complexity.
-
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]
