linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the parisc-hd 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]

Message-ID: <202005112219.0FB0A7A@keescook>
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 22:22:04 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>, yzaikin@...gle.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        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 Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:33:05AM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:55:16AM +0800, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
> > 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 ?
> 
> Yes, however I don't think folks know how to do this well. So I think we
> just have to do at least start ourselves, and then reflect some of this
> in the docs.  The reason that this can be not easy is that we need to
> ensure that at an init level we haven't busted dependencies on setting
> this. We also just don't have docs on how to do this well.
> 
> > In addition, is it necessary to transfer the architecture-related sysctl
> > interface to arch/xxx/kernel/sysctl.c ?
> 
> Well here's an initial attempt to start with fs stuff in a very
> conservative way. What do folks think?
> 
> [...]
> +static unsigned long zero_ul;
> +static unsigned long long_max = LONG_MAX;

I think it'd be nice to keep these in one place for others to reuse,
though that means making them non-static. (And now that I look at them,
I thought they were supposed to be const?)

-- 
Kees Cook