[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject2.2: sysctl() dangers

I had a closer look at the sysctl() stuff. I was wondering how to
check values, so I looked at the existing code...

...and realized that in many cases the values passed are not checked
at all! Furthermore some routines could really have a on-line

I originally thought about writing a wrapper around the do_intverc
stuff to check values before they are written to the kernel. That
seemed messy.

I'd really like to see a more general framework that has the ability
to call a function (pointer) before and after a value has been set
(or read).

Another problem seems to be the orthogonality with the capability
model: Only the file permissions are used.

Locking: Without proper hooks, a global kernel lock would have to be
used (just to be safe).

I wonder whether the sysctl and do_intvercminmax could be rewritten
to be more modular and of general use. Writing special code with 80%
common for each variable to be set seems quite bad.

I seem unable to do that due to lack of time (in case you wanted to

P.S. Remember I'm not subscribed here, so make sure I can read your
comments ;-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans