linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] kernel/sysctl: support setting sysctl parameters from kernel command line

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: <20200427113331.f0c1e8e7cee98644260448d3@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 11:33:31 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Ivan Teterevkov <ivan.teterevkov@...anix.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...onical.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] kernel/sysctl: support setting sysctl parameters
 from kernel command line

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:04:29 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:

> A recently proposed patch to add vm_swappiness command line parameter in
> addition to existing sysctl [1] made me wonder why we don't have a general
> support for passing sysctl parameters via command line. Googling found only
> somebody else wondering the same [2], but I haven't found any prior discussion
> with reasons why not to do this.
> 
> Settings the vm_swappiness issue aside (the underlying issue might be solved in
> a different way), quick search of kernel-parameters.txt shows there are already
> some that exist as both sysctl and kernel parameter - hung_task_panic,
> nmi_watchdog, numa_zonelist_order, traceoff_on_warning. A general mechanism
> would remove the need to add more of those one-offs and might be handy in
> situations where configuration by e.g. /etc/sysctl.d/ is impractical.
> 
> Hence, this patch adds a new parse_args() pass that looks for parameters
> prefixed by 'sysctl.' and tries to interpret them as writes to the
> corresponding sys/ files using an temporary in-kernel procfs mount. This
> mechanism was suggested by Eric W. Biederman [3], as it handles all dynamically
> registered sysctl tables, even though we don't handle modular sysctls. Errors
> due to e.g. invalid parameter name or value are reported in the kernel log.
> 
> The processing is hooked right before the init process is loaded, as some
> handlers might be more complicated than simple setters and might need some
> subsystems to be initialized. At the moment the init process can be started and
> eventually execute a process writing to /proc/sys/ then it should be also fine
> to do that from the kernel.
> 
> Sysctls registered later on module load time are not set by this mechanism -
> it's expected that in such scenarios, setting sysctl values from userspace is
> practical enough.
> 
> ...
>  
> +	sysctl.*=	[KNL]
> +			Set a sysctl parameter, right before loading the init
> +			process, as if the value was written to the respective
> +			/proc/sys/... file. Both '.' and '/' are recognized as
> +			separators. Unrecognized parameters and invalid values
> +			are reported in the kernel log. Sysctls registered
> +			later by a loaded module cannot be set this way.
> +			Example: sysctl.vm.swappiness=40

Why support "."?  I think only supporting "/" is perfectly adequate and
simplifies documentation.  It aligns the command-line syntax with the
rest of the sysctl documentation.  I'm not seeing the need to provide
two ways of doing the same thing?