netdev - Re: [net-next RESEND v2] net: core: use shared sysctl macro

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: <20220406122528.1cb94bfb@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 12:25:28 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
        Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Akhmat Karakotov <hmukos@...dex-team.ru>
Subject: Re: [net-next RESEND v2] net: core: use shared sysctl macro

On Wed,  6 Apr 2022 20:42:08 +0800 xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com wrote:
> From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
> 
> This patch introdues the SYSCTL_THREE, and replace the
> two, three and long_one to SYSCTL_XXX accordingly.
> 
>  KUnit:
>  [23:03:58] ================ sysctl_test (10 subtests) =================
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_api_dointvec_null_tbl_data
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_maxlen_unset
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_len_is_zero
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_read_but_position_set
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_dointvec_read_happy_single_positive
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_dointvec_read_happy_single_negative
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_dointvec_write_happy_single_positive
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_dointvec_write_happy_single_negative
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_api_dointvec_write_single_less_int_min
>  [23:03:58] [PASSED] sysctl_test_api_dointvec_write_single_greater_int_max
>  [23:03:58] =================== [PASSED] sysctl_test ===================
> 
>  ./run_kselftest.sh -c sysctl
>  ...
>  # Running test: sysctl_test_0006 - run #49
>  # Checking bitmap handler... ok
>  # Wed Mar 16 14:58:41 UTC 2022
>  # Running test: sysctl_test_0007 - run #0
>  # Boot param test only possible sysctl_test is built-in, not module:
>  # CONFIG_TEST_SYSCTL=m
>  ok 1 selftests: sysctl: sysctl.sh

> diff --git a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> index 7d9cfc730bd4..0bdd9249666b 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_sys_dir_file_operations;
>  static const struct inode_operations proc_sys_dir_operations;
>  
>  /* shared constants to be used in various sysctls */
> -const int sysctl_vals[] = { -1, 0, 1, 2, 4, 100, 200, 1000, 3000, INT_MAX, 65535 };
> +const int sysctl_vals[] = { -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 100, 200, 1000, 3000, INT_MAX, 65535 };
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(sysctl_vals);
>  
>  const unsigned long sysctl_long_vals[] = { 0, 1, LONG_MAX };
> diff --git a/include/linux/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> index 6353d6db69b2..b2ac6542455f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> @@ -42,12 +42,13 @@ struct ctl_dir;
>  #define SYSCTL_ZERO			((void *)&sysctl_vals[1])
>  #define SYSCTL_ONE			((void *)&sysctl_vals[2])
>  #define SYSCTL_TWO			((void *)&sysctl_vals[3])
> -#define SYSCTL_FOUR			((void *)&sysctl_vals[4])

nit: I vote we move the -1 later in the array, so that for the first
5 "natural" numbers the index matches the value.

> -#define SYSCTL_ONE_HUNDRED		((void *)&sysctl_vals[5])
> -#define SYSCTL_TWO_HUNDRED		((void *)&sysctl_vals[6])
> -#define SYSCTL_ONE_THOUSAND		((void *)&sysctl_vals[7])
> -#define SYSCTL_THREE_THOUSAND		((void *)&sysctl_vals[8])
> -#define SYSCTL_INT_MAX			((void *)&sysctl_vals[9])
> +#define SYSCTL_THREE			((void *)&sysctl_vals[4])
> +#define SYSCTL_FOUR			((void *)&sysctl_vals[5])
> +#define SYSCTL_ONE_HUNDRED		((void *)&sysctl_vals[6])
> +#define SYSCTL_TWO_HUNDRED		((void *)&sysctl_vals[7])
> +#define SYSCTL_ONE_THOUSAND		((void *)&sysctl_vals[8])
> +#define SYSCTL_THREE_THOUSAND		((void *)&sysctl_vals[9])
> +#define SYSCTL_INT_MAX			((void *)&sysctl_vals[10])

> @@ -388,7 +384,7 @@ static struct ctl_table net_core_table[] = {
>  		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
>  # else
>  		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
> -		.extra2		= &two,
> +		.extra2		= SYSCTL_TWO,
>  # endif
>  	},
>  # ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EBPF_JIT
> @@ -399,7 +395,7 @@ static struct ctl_table net_core_table[] = {
>  		.mode		= 0600,
>  		.proc_handler	= proc_dointvec_minmax_bpf_restricted,
>  		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
> -		.extra2		= &two,
> +		.extra2		= SYSCTL_TWO,
>  	},
>  	{
>  		.procname	= "bpf_jit_kallsyms",
> @@ -417,7 +413,7 @@ static struct ctl_table net_core_table[] = {
>  		.maxlen		= sizeof(long),
>  		.mode		= 0600,
>  		.proc_handler	= proc_dolongvec_minmax_bpf_restricted,
> -		.extra1		= &long_one,
> +		.extra1		= SYSCTL_LONG_ONE,

Hm, looks like most of the conversions are not to the newly added value
of three. Feels like those should be a separate patch.