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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:50:57 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> Cc: Yan Zhu <zhuyan34@...wei.com>, andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, kafai@...com, keescook@...omium.org, kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, liucheng32@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, nixiaoming@...wei.com, songliubraving@...com, xiechengliang1@...wei.com, yhs@...com, yzaikin@...gle.com, zengweilin@...wei.com, leeyou.li@...wei.com, laiyuanyuan.lai@...wei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 sysctl-next] bpf: move bpf sysctls from kernel/sysctl.c to bpf module On 4/13/22 9:46 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:40:58PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 4/13/22 9:00 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:45:00PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >>>> On 4/7/22 9:07 AM, Yan Zhu wrote: >>>>> We're moving sysctls out of kernel/sysctl.c as its a mess. We >>>>> already moved all filesystem sysctls out. And with time the goal is >>>>> to move all sysctls out to their own subsystem/actual user. >>>>> >>>>> kernel/sysctl.c has grown to an insane mess and its easy to run >>>>> into conflicts with it. The effort to move them out is part of this. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yan Zhu <zhuyan34@...wei.com> >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> >>>> >>>> Given the desire is to route this via sysctl-next and we're not shortly >>>> before but after the merge win, could we get a feature branch for bpf-next >>>> to pull from to avoid conflicts with ongoing development cycle? >>> >>> Sure thing. So I've never done this sort of thing, so forgive me for >>> being new at it. Would it make sense to merge this change to sysctl-next >>> as-is today and put a frozen branch sysclt-next-bpf to reflect this, >>> which bpf-next can merge. And then sysctl-next just continues to chug on >>> its own? As-is my goal is to keep sysctl-next as immutable as well. >>> >>> Or is there a better approach you can recommend? >> >> Are you able to merge the pr/bpf-sysctl branch into your sysctl-next tree? >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/log/?h=pr/bpf-sysctl >> >> This is based off common base for both trees (3123109284176b1532874591f7c81f3837bbdc17) >> so should only pull in the single commit then. > > Yup. That worked just fine. I pushed it. Great, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists