From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang Subject: Re: IPv4: sysctl table check failed [was: mmotm 2010-10-07-14-08 uploaded] Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:30:15 +0800 Message-ID: <20101008163015.GB5724@hack> References: <201010072140.o97Le69i025659@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <4CAE4479.6010606@gmail.com> <1286490135.6536.75.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101007152806.119d1522.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , Jiri Slaby , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, ML netdev , "David S. Miller" , "Eric W. Biederman" To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:42335 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753264Ab0JHQ2L (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:28:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101007152806.119d1522.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 03:28:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:22:15 +0200 >Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> Le vendredi 08 octobre 2010 __ 00:06 +0200, Jiri Slaby a __crit : >> > On 10/07/2010 11:08 PM, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: >> > > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-10-07-14-08 has been uploaded to >> > >> > Hi, I got bunch of "sysctl table check failed" below. All seem to be >> > related to ipv4: >> >> I would say, sysctl check is buggy :( >> >> min/max are optional >> >> [PATCH] sysctl: min/max bounds are optional >> >> sysctl check complains when proc_doulongvec_minmax or >> proc_doulongvec_ms_jiffies_minmax are used by a vector of longs (with >> more than one element), with no min or max value specified. >> >> This is unexpected, given we had a bug on this min/max handling :) >> >> Reported-by: Jiri Slaby >> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet >> --- >> kernel/sysctl_check.c | 9 --------- >> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl_check.c b/kernel/sysctl_check.c >> index 04cdcf7..10b90d8 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sysctl_check.c >> +++ b/kernel/sysctl_check.c >> @@ -143,15 +143,6 @@ int sysctl_check_table(struct nsproxy *namespaces, struct ctl_table *table) >> if (!table->maxlen) >> set_fail(&fail, table, "No maxlen"); >> } >> - if ((table->proc_handler == proc_doulongvec_minmax) || >> - (table->proc_handler == proc_doulongvec_ms_jiffies_minmax)) { >> - if (table->maxlen > sizeof (unsigned long)) { >> - if (!table->extra1) >> - set_fail(&fail, table, "No min"); >> - if (!table->extra2) >> - set_fail(&fail, table, "No max"); >> - } >> - } >> #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL >> if (table->procname && !table->proc_handler) >> set_fail(&fail, table, "No proc_handler"); > >That will probably fix it ;) Yeah, it looks good for me too, Acked-by: WANG Cong > >net-avoid-limits-overflow.patch is dependent on this patch. Unless >Eric B squeaks I'll plan on sending this patch in for 2.6.37. > Eirc B reminded me we should check the code in sysctl_check.c, but I forgot. The patch from Eric D is exactly what we need here. Thanks.