YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello. > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 09 Aug 2007 > 14:09:29 -0600), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) says: > >> After going through the kernels sysctl tables several times it has >> become clear that code review and testing is just not effective in >> prevent problematic sysctl tables from being used in the stable >> kernel. I certainly can't seem to fix the problems as fast as >> they are introduced. > : >> The biggest part of the code is the table of valid binary sysctl >> entries, but since we have frozen our set of binary sysctls this table >> should not need to change, and it makes it much easier to detect >> when someone unintentionally adds a new binary sysctl value. > > I don't think everyone needs to have this code, so > it is better to make it configurable via > CONFIG_SYSCTL_DEBUG or something..., ...no?
I wouldn't reject such a patch. We are a ways out from the next stable kernel merge window and I'd love to see what else falls out so I'd like to have it on by default for a bit. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
