linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] kernel/time: move timer sysctls to its own file

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Yfwyu0N4+f51J9OU@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:53:31 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        tangmeng <tangmeng@...ontech.com>, keescook@...omium.org,
        yzaikin@...gle.com, john.stultz@...aro.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] kernel/time: move timer sysctls to its own file

On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 10:35:06AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02 2022 at 17:17, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:21:46AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > *Today* all filesystem syctls now get reviewed by fs folks. They are
> > all tidied up there.
> >
> > In the future x86 folks can review their sysctls. But for no reason
> > should I have to review every single knob. That's not scalable.
> 
> Fair enough, but can we please have a changelog which explains the
> rationale to the people who have not been part of that discussion and
> decision.

Sure thing, tangmeng please update the commit log a bit better.

> >> That aside, I'm tired of this because this is now at V5 and you still
> >> failed to fix the fallout reported by the 0-day infrastructure vs. this
> >> part of the patch:
> >> 
> >> > +static int __init timer_sysctl_init(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > +	register_sysctl_init("kernel", timer_sysctl);
> >> > +	return 0;
> >> > +}
> >> 
> >>     kernel/time/timer.c: In function 'timer_sysctl_init':
> >>  >> kernel/time/timer.c:284:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'register_sysctl_init'; did you mean 'timer_sysctl_init'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >>       284 |         register_sysctl_init("kernel", timer_sysctl);
> >> 	  |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> 
> >
> > That's an issue with the patch being tested on a tree where that
> > routine is not present?
> 
> From the report:
> 
>   ...
>   [also build test ERROR on linus/master
> 
> Linus tree has this interface. So that's not the problem.
> 
> Hint #1: The interfaxce is not available unconditionally
> 
> Hint #2: The 0-day reports provide the config file which exposes the
>          fail

tangmeng, please fix.

  Luis