From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>
Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, Randolf Pohl <randolf.pohl@gmx.de>,
gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org,
stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [46/74] net: restore ip source validation
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:21:16 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1iqabe337.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pr4jxuzl.fsf@turtle.gmx.de> (Sven Joachim's message of "Fri\, 05 Feb 2010 21\:55\:58 +0100")
Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> writes:
> On 2010-02-05 21:17 +0100, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> Bah. That DEVINET_SYSCTL_ENTRY requires having a binary sysctl
>> assigned, just to use as an index.
>>
>> Which of course trips over all of the fine checks in sysctl_check.c to
>> keep people from assigning new binary sysctls by accident.
>>
>> That is the only place in the kernel where he have that problem, I wonder
>> how much work it will be to finish untangling.
>
> Isn't that already done in 2.6.33, looking at commit 83ac201b ? Forgive
> my ignorance, I am a layman.
In 2.6.33 the enumeration in sysctl.h still serves double duty as an index
into a per network device bitmap and as the binary sysctl number. You are
correct that the rest of the binary sysctl code is decoupled in 2.6.33.
In 2.6.32 the implementation is also still coupled and that difference is
what caused problems for the backport.
I just wince whenever I noticed we have touched sysctl.h.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-05 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-05 14:34 [46/74] net: restore ip source validation Randolf Pohl
2010-02-05 14:51 ` jamal
2010-02-05 16:04 ` Sven Joachim
2010-02-05 20:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-05 20:55 ` Sven Joachim
2010-02-05 22:21 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2010-02-05 22:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-02-04 17:18 [00/74] 2.6.32.8-stable review Greg KH
2010-02-04 17:12 ` [46/74] net: restore ip source validation Greg KH
2010-02-05 10:16 ` Sven Joachim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m1iqabe337.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=randolf.pohl@gmx.de \
--cc=stable-review@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=svenjoac@gmx.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.