netdev - Re: route/max_size sysctl in ipv4

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:23:59 -0800
From:	Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com>
To:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: route/max_size sysctl in ipv4

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps. What I am truly confused about is :
>>
>> - We are keeping a sysctl interface that does absolutely nothing in
>> the kernel and is completely useless in case some userland
>> scripts/tools are rendered broken from it's removal.
>
> I am all for getting rid of it, sane script should always check
> the sysctl existence first. I think we did remove some sysctl's
> from kernel before.

I'd be much happier if things break uniformly everywhere - within and
outside namespaces. Besides, keeping a useless sysctl around that does
nothing is confusing and error prone, to say the least.

If we do decide to keep the sysctl around, I beg that we at least
update the documentation to reflect the true fact. I have already sent
a patch for this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html