lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:27:07 -0800 From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Cc: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Leo Chen <leochen@...adcom.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/23] sysctl arm: Remove binary sysctl support Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> writes: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:05:05 -0800 > ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > >> > >> > The practical difference is that /proc support now must be compiled >> > in to support sys_sysctl. >> >> But thanks for the reminder that I need to go into glibc and fix this >> before we disable the sys_sysctl emulation by default. > > how are you dealing with existing glibcs ? Or with static linked > binaries? or.. or .. > > breaking a heavily used ABI like this is not going to be pretty > or even sane, no matter which way you hate the current one. sysctl_binary.c has all of the code to continue to provide the existing ABI. sys_sysctl is not heavily used at all, and this is the responsible removal of a practically unused ABI. Last I check (and this was before I shouted to the world that sys_sysctl is going away) I could count on one hand all of the users of sys_sysctl. /proc/sys will definitely continue to exist. I just took a look and the use in linux threads that I don't warn about is used by glibc-2.8 but not by glibc-2.10. glibc-2.11 has just been released. so by next year when the removal is scheduled we are looking at multiple releases of glibc that don't use sys_sysctl. So I expect shortly I can warn about all uses of sys_sysctl without anyone seeing a warning. The one unfixed case I know about is fixing ioperm on arm, in the glibc ports tree, and that will need to happen before sys_sysctl is disabled by default. Which is all I intend to do when we reach that point in feature removal schedule now that I have refactored the code so that sys_sysctl no longer imposes a maintenance burden on the sane sysctl users. I don't hate sysctl, in fact for global tuneables I would argue for all it's faults sysctl it is one of the better interfaces we have. I just figure the implementation needs to be optimized for the way sysctl is used today, the via /proc/sys. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists