[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzo85-sdC_eDVRWcCdsK2p1JxCjswYidq-QSi5RieGmBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 16:52:59 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cmdline: Hide "debug" from /proc/cmdline
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> Which doesn't really protect you from tasks that do open()/write()/close()
> cycle for /dev/kmsg write every 2ms though.
I don't think we should try to protect against wilful bad behavior
unless that is shown to be necessary. Yeah, if it turns out that
systemd really does that just to mess with us, we'd need to extend it,
but in the absence of proof to the contrary, maybe this simple
attached patch works?
TOTALLY UNTESTED. But it really isn't complex.
The complexity is likely to be about setting the actual default
values. So consider this a RFC and a "does this fix the problem that
Borislav reported?" test-patch.
Borislav?
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (919 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists