linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sysctl tree with the net tree

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]

Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:26:12 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sysctl tree with the net tree

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the sysctl tree got a conflict in
>>> net/sctp/sysctl.c between commit 90f2f5318b3a5b0898fef0fec9b91376c7de7a2c
>>> ("sctp: Update SWS avaoidance receiver side algorithm") from the net tree
>>> and commit f8572d8f2a2ba75408b97dc24ef47c83671795d7 ("sysctl net: Remove
>>> unused binary sysctl code") from the sysctl tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.  I also
>>> removed the strategy member from the new added ctl_table entry.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
>>>
>>> diff --cc net/sctp/sysctl.c
>>> index ae03ded,d50a042..0000000
>>> --- a/net/sctp/sysctl.c
>>> +++ b/net/sctp/sysctl.c
>>> @@@ -285,19 -241,7 +242,17 @@@ static ctl_table sctp_table[] =
>>>                .extra1         = &zero,
>>>                .extra2         = &addr_scope_max,
>>>        },
>>>  +      {
>>> -               .ctl_name       = CTL_UNNUMBERED,
>>>  +              .procname       = "rwnd_update_shift",
>>>  +              .data           = &sctp_rwnd_upd_shift,
>>>  +              .maxlen         = sizeof(int),
>>>  +              .mode           = 0644,
>>> -               .proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec_minmax,
>>> -               .strategy       = &sysctl_intvec,
>>> ++              .proc_handler   = proc_dointvec_minmax,
>>
>> Hey, what's this??
>
> The short version is I am running a git tree that holds all of
> the necessary cleanups to remove the support for binary sysctl handlers.
>
> The binary sysctl support continues to be provided in kernel/sysctl_binary.c
> with a compatibility wrapper.  This has been reviewed on linux-kernel
> and written up in lwn.

Yeah, I saw your patches, but didn't have a chance to look at them closely.

>
> In my tree .ctl_name and .strategy have been removed as they exist
> only to support binary sysctls and are not strictly needed today.
> .ctl_name = CTL_UNNUMBERED is equivalent to .ctl_name = 0, and setting
> .strategy on new sysctl table entries without a ctl_name is a harmless
> bug.  Since I was in there I also removed all of the unnecessary ampersands
> from in front of proc_dointvec_minmax.
>
> Since I have touched practically every sysctl table entry in the kernel
> new sysctl additions will almost inevitably cause a small by trivially
> to resolve conflict (due to the fact I have almost certainly changed
> the proceeding and succeeding sysctl table entries).
>
> Currently this only the second sysctl added this kernel cycle, and it
> looks like this work happened in parallel, with my changes, and somehow
> David missed this commit in his September pull, so the changes just
> showed up in net-next.
>
> It would seem to require talent to mess up the merge conflicts, and
> getting it wrong will result in a tree that won't compile so I am not
> going to worry about it until Linux pulls one of our trees.

Thanks for this explanation, I see...
--
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/