linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/23] Removal of binary sysctl support

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: <m1r5s88irh.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:44:02 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] Removal of binary sysctl support

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:

> On Sunday 08 November 2009 12:16:43 Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> This patchset reimplements sys_sysctl as a compatibility wrapper
>> around /proc/sys.  After which it removes all of the code to all over
>> the kernel that is used today to implement the binary sysctls.
>> 
>> I am posting this patchset to give everyone a heads up what is in
>> flight.
>> 
>> I intend to carry all of these patches in my sysctl tree.
>
> Very nice patches again!
>
> Looking at what you did, I had two ideas how to move on from there,
> which may be part of your plans already:
>
> 1. Make it possible to build sysctl_binary.c as a loadable module
> so you can get a smaller kernel without losing the option to use
> binary sysctl altogether. This of course requires a small portion
> to remain in the kernel, to provide the actual syscall entry point
> and load the module on demand.

I can see how this could make sense from a distribution perspective.

> 2. On top of that, put the same code into glibc so that you don't
> even have to load the module when you're running a new glibc version.
> Since the binary sysctl ABI is stable (as in stiff and dead), there
> should be no need to synchronize any extensions to it betwen kernel
> and libc.

I don't expect we will need to move this to glibc.  There are so few
users of sys_sysctl now, that I hardly expect it to be worth it to move
this code out of the kernel.

For me the big problem with sys_sysctl is solved by this patchset.
It no longer constitutes a maintenance burden on the rest of the sysctl
code, and the other sysctl users.

Now the implementation of /proc/sys can be implemented and optimized without
dealing with any sys_sysctl baggage.

All of that said if someone is interested in tweaking sysctl_binary.c to make
it easier to deal with sys_sysctl going away I don't have any problems.

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/