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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:50:57 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <>
Cc:     Yan Zhu <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
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 <>
>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <>
>>>> 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?
>> 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