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: <20191101110901.GB690103@chrisdown.name>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:09:01 +0000
From:   Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: sysctl: make drop_caches write-only

Hm, not sure why my client didn't show this reply.

Andrew Morton writes:
>Risk: some (odd) userspace code will break.  Fixable by manually chmodding
>it back again.

The only scenario I can construct in my head is that someone has built 
something to watch drop_caches for modification, but we already have the kmsg 
output for that.

>Reward: very little.
>
>Is the reward worth the risk?

There is evidence that this has already caused confusion[0] for many, judging 
by the number of views and votes. I think the reward is higher than stated 
here, since it makes the intent and lack of persistent API in the API clearer, 
and less likely to cause confusion in future.

0: https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/17936/10762

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ