netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 -next 00/15] sysctl: move sysctls from vm

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: <69509584-92c2-6bcd-0aef-406af7606239@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 19:15:16 +0800
From: yukaixiong <yukaixiong@...wei.com>
To: Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <mcgrof@...nel.org>, <ysato@...rs.osdn.me>,
	<dalias@...c.org>, <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>, <luto@...nel.org>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <hpa@...or.com>, <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	<brauner@...nel.org>, <jack@...e.cz>, <kees@...nel.org>,
	<willy@...radead.org>, <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, <trondmy@...nel.org>, <anna@...nel.org>,
	<chuck.lever@...cle.com>, <jlayton@...nel.org>, <neilb@...e.de>,
	<okorniev@...hat.com>, <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, <tom@...pey.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <paul@...l-moore.com>, <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	<linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	<haifeng.xu@...pee.com>, <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	<shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, <dchinner@...hat.com>, <bfoster@...hat.com>,
	<souravpanda@...gle.com>, <hannes@...xchg.org>, <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	<pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, <david@...hat.com>, <ryan.roberts@....com>,
	<ying.huang@...el.com>, <yang@...amperecomputing.com>,
	<zev@...ilderbeest.net>, <serge@...lyn.com>, <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
	<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <sunnanyong@...wei.com>,
	<joel.granados@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 -next 00/15] sysctl: move sysctls from vm_table into
 its own files



On 2024/10/24 16:59, Joel Granados wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 04:07:10PM +0800, yukaixiong wrote:
> ...
>>
>>>>    mm/swap.c                          |  16 ++-
>>>>    mm/swap.h                          |   1 +
>>>>    mm/util.c                          |  67 +++++++--
>>>>    mm/vmscan.c                        |  23 +++
>>>>    mm/vmstat.c                        |  44 +++++-
>>>>    net/sunrpc/auth.c                  |   2 +-
>>>>    security/min_addr.c                |  11 ++
>>>>    23 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 312 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>
>>> General comment for the patchset in general. I would consider making the
>>> new sysctl tables const. There is an effort for doing this and it has
>>> already lanted in linux-next. So if you base your patch from a recent
>>> next release, then it should just work. If you *do* decide to add a
>>> const qualifier, then note that you will create a dependency with the
>>> sysctl patchset currently in next and that will have to go in before.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>> Sorry,  I don't understand what is the meaning of "create a dependency
>> with the sysctl patchset".
> The patches in the sysctl subsys that allow you to qualify the ctl_table
> as const are not in mainline yet. They are in linux-next. This means
> that if these patches go into the next kernel release before the
> sysctl-next branch, it will have compilation errors. Therefore the
> sysctl-next branch needs to be pulled in to the new kernel release
> before this patchest. This also means that for this to build properly it
> has to be based on a linux-next release.
>
>> Do you just want me to change all "static struct ctl_table" type table
>> into "static const struct ctl_table" type in my patchset?
> You should const qualify them if the maintainer that is pulling in these
> patches is ok with it. You should *not* const qualify them if the
> maintainer prefers otherwise.
>
> Please get back to me if I did not address your questions.
>
> Best

Thank you! Now， I decide to const qualify them. Maybe, it will be better.