Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:00:54 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer when using pipes in core_pattern |
| |
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 01:52:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:31:12 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > > > > One way would be to add a new sysctl-externs.h and then put all the > > > declarations in there. That file gets included by sysctl.c and by each > > > file which shares a global with sysctl.c > > > > Long ago I had a experimental patch to put sysctls into a new ELF section. The > > you could simply put a DEFINE_SYSCTL(....) into the appropiate source file > > which defined the variable and most of the tables went. > > > > No externs, no mess, no patch collisions, everything much nicer. > > > > The only problem was that it didn't support the numerical sysctl > > space, so that would need to be removed first. > > > > It's deprecated for quite some time now: > > > > if (msg_count < 5) { > > msg_count++; > > printk(KERN_INFO > > "warning: process `%s' used the deprecated sysctl " > > "system call with ", current->comm); > > > > Should it finally go now? If yes I could polish up the old patch again. > > > > I suspect that it will be a long time before we can actually remove the > numerical sysctl support, if ever. In _theory_ we should support it
To my knowledge the only one that is really commonly used is the one used by glibc, but that can be kept of course.
> for ever. But in practice, we could probably remove it with a minimum > of disruption a few years hence, but it's hard to work this out.
One alternative would be to just keep a translation table numerical -> symbolic for now and remove that later. That would still not need any externs at least.
Or perhaps make a explicit CONFIG_SYSCTL_NUMERICAL and ask users to report in.
> > When was the last time we saw a "warning: process `%s' used the > obsolete bdflush system call" warning? A quick google here says 2004. > Is that data? A bit, I guess.
bdflush?
> Maybe Eric has thought about this issue?
feature-removal says Sep 2010 (which seems a bit long in the future)
-Andi
-- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
| |