Re: [PATCH v3] sysctl: control functionality of /proc/pid/mem

Kees Cook
2012-01-31T19:22:44Z

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 13:12 +0200, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> On 1/24/12, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com> wrote:
>> >> +          .procname       = "proc_pid_mem",
>> >> +          .data           = &sysctl_proc_pid_mem,
>> >> +          .maxlen         = sizeof(int),
>> >> +          .mode           = 0644,
>> >> +          .proc_handler   = proc_dointvec_minmax,
>> >> +          .extra1         = &zero,
>> >> +          .extra2         = &two,
>> >> +  },
>>
>> >E.g. moving all such stuff to some sysctl group, not bloating
>> > kernel.*.
>>
>> Ehh.
>> How bloat is measured in this case?
>
> Do we want to add such sort of sysctls "from time to time" when we
> consider one or another feature as deprecated?  If yes, I'd group them
> somehow, e.g. by introducing subdirectory inside of kernel.
>
> Btw, kernel sysctl dir contains all sort of stuff which goes to "kernel"
> as if it is "etc".  It already contains ftrace, perf, printk, scheduler,
> ipc.  IMHO plain kernel hierarchy is not profitable in the long term.

Yeah, after reconsidering this, this sysctl is not the right approach.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security