linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] watchdog: move nmi

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: <aOfLWoveGuFEcvwm@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:48:58 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Xu <dlxu@...a.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: move nmi_watchdog sysctl into .rodata

On Thu 2025-10-09 16:20:48, Joel Granados wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 05:06:25PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Mon 2025-09-29 17:55:07, Joel Granados wrote:
> > > Move nmi_watchdog into the watchdog_sysctls array to prevent it from
> > > unnecessary modification. This move effectively moves it inside the
> > > .rodata section.
> > > 
> > > Initially moved out into its own non-const array in commit 9ec272c586b0
> > > ("watchdog/hardlockup: keep kernel.nmi_watchdog sysctl as 0444 if probe
> > > fails"), which made it writable only when watchdog_hardlockup_available
> > > was true. Moving it back to watchdog_sysctl keeps this behavior as
> > > writing to nmi_watchdog still fails when watchdog_hardlockup_available
> > > is false.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org>
> > 
> > The patch looks good to me. Updating the access rights was nice to
> > have. But it does not look not worth complicating the constification.
> > And proc_nmi_watchdog() works correctly even when the access rights
> > are always 0644.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr
> Thx for the review.
> 
> I'll push this through the sysctl-next branch unless you want to handle
> it somewhere else.

Feel free to push it via the sysctl-next branch.

Best Regards,
Petr