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  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, 11 May 2020 09:55:16 +0800
From:   Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <mcgrof@...nel.org>, <keescook@...omium.org>, <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the parisc-hd tree

On 2020/5/11 9:11, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    kernel/sysctl.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    b6522fa409cf ("parisc: add sysctl file interface panic_on_stackoverflow")
> 
> from the parisc-hd tree and commit:
> 
>    f461d2dcd511 ("sysctl: avoid forward declarations")
> 
> from the vfs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 


Kernel/sysctl.c contains more than 190 interface files, and there are a 
large number of config macro controls. When modifying the sysctl 
interface directly in kernel/sysctl.c , conflicts are very easy to occur.

At the same time, the register_sysctl_table() provided by the system can 
easily add the sysctl interface, and there is no conflict of 
kernel/sysctl.c .

Should we add instructions in the patch guide (coding-style.rst 
submitting-patches.rst):
Preferentially use register_sysctl_table() to add a new sysctl 
interface, centralize feature codes, and avoid directly modifying 
kernel/sysctl.c ?

In addition, is it necessary to transfer the architecture-related sysctl 
interface to arch/xxx/kernel/sysctl.c ?

Thanks
Xiaoming Ni

Powered by blists - more mailing lists