linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] sysctl: constify sysctl ctl

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

Message-ID: <ZXligolK0ekZ+Zuf@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 23:51:30 -0800
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] sysctl: constify sysctl ctl_tables

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:09:30AM +0100, Joel Granados wrote:
> My idea was to do something similar to your originl RFC, where you have
> an temporary proc_handler something like proc_hdlr_const (we would need
> to work on the name) and move each subsystem to the new handler while
> the others stay with the non-const one. At the end, the old proc_handler
> function name would disapear and would be completely replaced by the new
> proc_hdlr_const.
> 
> This is of course extra work and might not be worth it if you don't get
> negative feedback related to tree-wide changes. Therefore I stick to my
> previous suggestion. Send the big tree-wide patches and only explore
> this option if someone screams.

I think we can do better, can't we just increase confidence in that we
don't *need* muttable ctl_cables with something like smatch or
coccinelle so that we can just make them const?

Seems like a noble endeavor for us to generalize.

Then we just breeze through by first fixing those that *are* using
mutable tables by having it just de-register and then re-register
new tables if they need to be changed, and then a new series is sent
once we fix all those muttable tables.

  Luis