[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240620103451.7c4oznlkwty53bzs@joelS2.panther.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 12:34:51 +0200
From: Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
CC: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sysctl: treewide: constify the ctl_table argument of
proc_handlers
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:09:00PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Adapt the proc_hander function signature to make it clear that handlers
> are not supposed to modify their ctl_table argument.
>
> This is also a prerequisite to moving the static ctl_table structs into
> read-only data.
>
> The patch was mostly generated by coccinelle with the following script:
>
> @@
> identifier func, ctl, write, buffer, lenp, ppos;
> @@
>
> int func(
> - struct ctl_table *ctl,
> + const struct ctl_table *ctl,
> int write, void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> { ... }
>
> In addition to the scripted changes some other changes are done:
>
> * The "typedef proc_handler" in include/linux/sysctl.h is changed to use
> the "const ctl_table".
>
> * The prototypes of non-static handlers in header-files are adapted
> to match the changes of their respective definitions.
>
> * kernel/watchdog.c: proc_watchdog_common()
> This is called from a proc_handler itself and is als calling back
> into another proc_handler, making it necessary to change it as part
> of the proc_handler migration.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Will test this in 0-day in [1] to avoid potential conflicts with all the
other stuff going into linux-next and because it does not apply cleanly to
sysctl-next. Don't expect any issues from 0-day as it is a
non-functional trivial change.
I'll use this patch as is when the time comes during the end of the
merge window (at that point it should apply cleanly) and go into
@Thomas: Can I ping you during the merge window to double check that
there are no additional proc_handlers (without the const argument)
that might not be present in today's linux-next?
Best
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joel.granados/linux.git/log/?h=jag/constify_proc_handlers
--
Joel Granados
Powered by blists - more mailing lists