Searched hist:"4 f2fec00" (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/proc/ |
| H A D | proc_sysctl.c | 4f2fec00 Wed Jul 12 16:33:36 CDT 2017 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> sysctl: simplify unsigned int support
Commit e7d316a02f68 ("sysctl: handle error writing UINT_MAX to u32
fields") added proc_douintvec() to start help adding support for
unsigned int, this however was only half the work needed. Two fixes
have come in since then for the following issues:
o Printing the values shows a negative value, this happens since
do_proc_dointvec() and this uses proc_put_long()
This was fixed by commit 5380e5644afbba9 ("sysctl: don't print negative
flag for proc_douintvec").
o We can easily wrap around the int values: UINT_MAX is 4294967295, if
we echo in 4294967295 + 1 we end up with 0, using 4294967295 + 2 we
end up with 1.
o We echo negative values in and they are accepted
This was fixed by commit 425fffd886ba ("sysctl: report EINVAL if value
is larger than UINT_MAX for proc_douintvec").
It still also failed to be added to sysctl_check_table()... instead of
adding it with the current implementation just provide a proper and
simplified unsigned int support without any array unsigned int support
with no negative support at all.
Historically sysctl proc helpers have supported arrays, due to the
complexity this adds though we've taken a step back to evaluate array
users to determine if its worth upkeeping for unsigned int. An
evaluation using Coccinelle has been done to perform a grammatical
search to ask ourselves:
o How many sysctl proc_dointvec() (int) users exist which likely
should be moved over to proc_douintvec() (unsigned int) ?
Answer: about 8
- Of these how many are array users ?
Answer: Probably only 1
o How many sysctl array users exist ?
Answer: about 12
This last question gives us an idea just how popular arrays: they are not.
Array support should probably just be kept for strings.
The identified uint ports are:
drivers/infiniband/core/ucma.c - max_backlog
drivers/infiniband/core/iwcm.c - default_backlog
net/core/sysctl_net_core.c - rps_sock_flow_sysctl()
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp.c - nf_conntrack_timestamp -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_acct.c nf_conntrack_acct -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ecache.c - nf_conntrack_events -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_helper.c - nf_conntrack_helper -- bool
net/phonet/sysctl.c proc_local_port_range()
The only possible array users is proc_local_port_range() but it does not
seem worth it to add array support just for this given the range support
works just as well. Unsigned int support should be desirable more for
when you *need* more than INT_MAX or using int min/max support then does
not suffice for your ranges.
If you forget and by mistake happen to register an unsigned int proc
entry with an array, the driver will fail and you will get something as
follows:
sysctl table check failed: debug/test_sysctl//uint_0002 array now allowed
CPU: 2 PID: 1342 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W E <etc>
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS <etc>
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x63/0x81
__register_sysctl_table+0x350/0x650
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x107/0x240
__register_sysctl_paths+0x1b3/0x1e0
? 0xffffffffc005f000
register_sysctl_table+0x1f/0x30
test_sysctl_init+0x10/0x1000 [test_sysctl]
do_one_initcall+0x52/0x1a0
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x107/0x240
do_init_module+0x5f/0x200
load_module+0x1867/0x1bd0
? __symbol_put+0x60/0x60
SYSC_finit_module+0xdf/0x110
SyS_finit_module+0xe/0x10
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1e/0xad
RIP: 0033:0x7f042b22d119
<etc>
Fixes: e7d316a02f68 ("sysctl: handle error writing UINT_MAX to u32 fields")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170519033554.18592-5-mcgrof@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
4f2fec00 Wed Jul 12 16:33:36 CDT 2017 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> sysctl: simplify unsigned int support
Commit e7d316a02f68 ("sysctl: handle error writing UINT_MAX to u32
fields") added proc_douintvec() to start help adding support for
unsigned int, this however was only half the work needed. Two fixes
have come in since then for the following issues:
o Printing the values shows a negative value, this happens since
do_proc_dointvec() and this uses proc_put_long()
This was fixed by commit 5380e5644afbba9 ("sysctl: don't print negative
flag for proc_douintvec").
o We can easily wrap around the int values: UINT_MAX is 4294967295, if
we echo in 4294967295 + 1 we end up with 0, using 4294967295 + 2 we
end up with 1.
o We echo negative values in and they are accepted
This was fixed by commit 425fffd886ba ("sysctl: report EINVAL if value
is larger than UINT_MAX for proc_douintvec").
It still also failed to be added to sysctl_check_table()... instead of
adding it with the current implementation just provide a proper and
simplified unsigned int support without any array unsigned int support
with no negative support at all.
Historically sysctl proc helpers have supported arrays, due to the
complexity this adds though we've taken a step back to evaluate array
users to determine if its worth upkeeping for unsigned int. An
evaluation using Coccinelle has been done to perform a grammatical
search to ask ourselves:
o How many sysctl proc_dointvec() (int) users exist which likely
should be moved over to proc_douintvec() (unsigned int) ?
Answer: about 8
- Of these how many are array users ?
Answer: Probably only 1
o How many sysctl array users exist ?
Answer: about 12
This last question gives us an idea just how popular arrays: they are not.
Array support should probably just be kept for strings.
The identified uint ports are:
drivers/infiniband/core/ucma.c - max_backlog
drivers/infiniband/core/iwcm.c - default_backlog
net/core/sysctl_net_core.c - rps_sock_flow_sysctl()
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp.c - nf_conntrack_timestamp -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_acct.c nf_conntrack_acct -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ecache.c - nf_conntrack_events -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_helper.c - nf_conntrack_helper -- bool
net/phonet/sysctl.c proc_local_port_range()
The only possible array users is proc_local_port_range() but it does not
seem worth it to add array support just for this given the range support
works just as well. Unsigned int support should be desirable more for
when you *need* more than INT_MAX or using int min/max support then does
not suffice for your ranges.
If you forget and by mistake happen to register an unsigned int proc
entry with an array, the driver will fail and you will get something as
follows:
sysctl table check failed: debug/test_sysctl//uint_0002 array now allowed
CPU: 2 PID: 1342 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W E <etc>
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS <etc>
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x63/0x81
__register_sysctl_table+0x350/0x650
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x107/0x240
__register_sysctl_paths+0x1b3/0x1e0
? 0xffffffffc005f000
register_sysctl_table+0x1f/0x30
test_sysctl_init+0x10/0x1000 [test_sysctl]
do_one_initcall+0x52/0x1a0
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x107/0x240
do_init_module+0x5f/0x200
load_module+0x1867/0x1bd0
? __symbol_put+0x60/0x60
SYSC_finit_module+0xdf/0x110
SyS_finit_module+0xe/0x10
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1e/0xad
RIP: 0033:0x7f042b22d119
<etc>
Fixes: e7d316a02f68 ("sysctl: handle error writing UINT_MAX to u32 fields")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170519033554.18592-5-mcgrof@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
| /openbmc/linux/kernel/ |
| H A D | sysctl.c | 4f2fec00 Wed Jul 12 16:33:36 CDT 2017 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> sysctl: simplify unsigned int support
Commit e7d316a02f68 ("sysctl: handle error writing UINT_MAX to u32
fields") added proc_douintvec() to start help adding support for
unsigned int, this however was only half the work needed. Two fixes
have come in since then for the following issues:
o Printing the values shows a negative value, this happens since
do_proc_dointvec() and this uses proc_put_long()
This was fixed by commit 5380e5644afbba9 ("sysctl: don't print negative
flag for proc_douintvec").
o We can easily wrap around the int values: UINT_MAX is 4294967295, if
we echo in 4294967295 + 1 we end up with 0, using 4294967295 + 2 we
end up with 1.
o We echo negative values in and they are accepted
This was fixed by commit 425fffd886ba ("sysctl: report EINVAL if value
is larger than UINT_MAX for proc_douintvec").
It still also failed to be added to sysctl_check_table()... instead of
adding it with the current implementation just provide a proper and
simplified unsigned int support without any array unsigned int support
with no negative support at all.
Historically sysctl proc helpers have supported arrays, due to the
complexity this adds though we've taken a step back to evaluate array
users to determine if its worth upkeeping for unsigned int. An
evaluation using Coccinelle has been done to perform a grammatical
search to ask ourselves:
o How many sysctl proc_dointvec() (int) users exist which likely
should be moved over to proc_douintvec() (unsigned int) ?
Answer: about 8
- Of these how many are array users ?
Answer: Probably only 1
o How many sysctl array users exist ?
Answer: about 12
This last question gives us an idea just how popular arrays: they are not.
Array support should probably just be kept for strings.
The identified uint ports are:
drivers/infiniband/core/ucma.c - max_backlog
drivers/infiniband/core/iwcm.c - default_backlog
net/core/sysctl_net_core.c - rps_sock_flow_sysctl()
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp.c - nf_conntrack_timestamp -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_acct.c nf_conntrack_acct -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ecache.c - nf_conntrack_events -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_helper.c - nf_conntrack_helper -- bool
net/phonet/sysctl.c proc_local_port_range()
The only possible array users is proc_local_port_range() but it does not
seem worth it to add array support just for this given the range support
works just as well. Unsigned int support should be desirable more for
when you *need* more than INT_MAX or using int min/max support then does
not suffice for your ranges.
If you forget and by mistake happen to register an unsigned int proc
entry with an array, the driver will fail and you will get something as
follows:
sysctl table check failed: debug/test_sysctl//uint_0002 array now allowed
CPU: 2 PID: 1342 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W E <etc>
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS <etc>
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x63/0x81
__register_sysctl_table+0x350/0x650
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x107/0x240
__register_sysctl_paths+0x1b3/0x1e0
? 0xffffffffc005f000
register_sysctl_table+0x1f/0x30
test_sysctl_init+0x10/0x1000 [test_sysctl]
do_one_initcall+0x52/0x1a0
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x107/0x240
do_init_module+0x5f/0x200
load_module+0x1867/0x1bd0
? __symbol_put+0x60/0x60
SYSC_finit_module+0xdf/0x110
SyS_finit_module+0xe/0x10
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1e/0xad
RIP: 0033:0x7f042b22d119
<etc>
Fixes: e7d316a02f68 ("sysctl: handle error writing UINT_MAX to u32 fields")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170519033554.18592-5-mcgrof@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
4f2fec00 Wed Jul 12 16:33:36 CDT 2017 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org> sysctl: simplify unsigned int support
Commit e7d316a02f68 ("sysctl: handle error writing UINT_MAX to u32
fields") added proc_douintvec() to start help adding support for
unsigned int, this however was only half the work needed. Two fixes
have come in since then for the following issues:
o Printing the values shows a negative value, this happens since
do_proc_dointvec() and this uses proc_put_long()
This was fixed by commit 5380e5644afbba9 ("sysctl: don't print negative
flag for proc_douintvec").
o We can easily wrap around the int values: UINT_MAX is 4294967295, if
we echo in 4294967295 + 1 we end up with 0, using 4294967295 + 2 we
end up with 1.
o We echo negative values in and they are accepted
This was fixed by commit 425fffd886ba ("sysctl: report EINVAL if value
is larger than UINT_MAX for proc_douintvec").
It still also failed to be added to sysctl_check_table()... instead of
adding it with the current implementation just provide a proper and
simplified unsigned int support without any array unsigned int support
with no negative support at all.
Historically sysctl proc helpers have supported arrays, due to the
complexity this adds though we've taken a step back to evaluate array
users to determine if its worth upkeeping for unsigned int. An
evaluation using Coccinelle has been done to perform a grammatical
search to ask ourselves:
o How many sysctl proc_dointvec() (int) users exist which likely
should be moved over to proc_douintvec() (unsigned int) ?
Answer: about 8
- Of these how many are array users ?
Answer: Probably only 1
o How many sysctl array users exist ?
Answer: about 12
This last question gives us an idea just how popular arrays: they are not.
Array support should probably just be kept for strings.
The identified uint ports are:
drivers/infiniband/core/ucma.c - max_backlog
drivers/infiniband/core/iwcm.c - default_backlog
net/core/sysctl_net_core.c - rps_sock_flow_sysctl()
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_timestamp.c - nf_conntrack_timestamp -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_acct.c nf_conntrack_acct -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_ecache.c - nf_conntrack_events -- bool
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_helper.c - nf_conntrack_helper -- bool
net/phonet/sysctl.c proc_local_port_range()
The only possible array users is proc_local_port_range() but it does not
seem worth it to add array support just for this given the range support
works just as well. Unsigned int support should be desirable more for
when you *need* more than INT_MAX or using int min/max support then does
not suffice for your ranges.
If you forget and by mistake happen to register an unsigned int proc
entry with an array, the driver will fail and you will get something as
follows:
sysctl table check failed: debug/test_sysctl//uint_0002 array now allowed
CPU: 2 PID: 1342 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W E <etc>
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS <etc>
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x63/0x81
__register_sysctl_table+0x350/0x650
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x107/0x240
__register_sysctl_paths+0x1b3/0x1e0
? 0xffffffffc005f000
register_sysctl_table+0x1f/0x30
test_sysctl_init+0x10/0x1000 [test_sysctl]
do_one_initcall+0x52/0x1a0
? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x107/0x240
do_init_module+0x5f/0x200
load_module+0x1867/0x1bd0
? __symbol_put+0x60/0x60
SYSC_finit_module+0xdf/0x110
SyS_finit_module+0xe/0x10
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1e/0xad
RIP: 0033:0x7f042b22d119
<etc>
Fixes: e7d316a02f68 ("sysctl: handle error writing UINT_MAX to u32 fields")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170519033554.18592-5-mcgrof@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Liping Zhang <zlpnobody@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|