lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/6] sysctl: Add flags to support min/max range clamping
From
Date
On 03/08/2018 03:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:35:32PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 03/08/2018 12:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:51:09PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 01:31:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:43:37 -0500 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When minimum/maximum values are specified for a sysctl parameter in
>>>>>> the ctl_table structure with proc_dointvec_minmax() handler, update
>>>>>> to that parameter will fail with error if the given value is outside
>>>>>> of the required range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are use cases where it may be better to clamp the value of
>>>>>> the sysctl parameter to the given range without failing the update,
>>>>>> especially if the users are not aware of the actual range limits.
>>>>>> Reading the value back after the update will now be a good practice
>>>>>> to see if the provided value exceeds the range limits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To provide this less restrictive form of range checking, a new flags
>>>>>> field is added to the ctl_table structure. The new field is a 16-bit
>>>>>> value that just fits into the hole left by the 16-bit umode_t field
>>>>>> without increasing the size of the structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE flag is set in the ctl_table entry,
>>>>>> any update from the userspace will be clamped to the given range
>>>>>> without error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
>>>>>> @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ struct ctl_table
>>>>>> void *data;
>>>>>> int maxlen;
>>>>>> umode_t mode;
>>>>>> + uint16_t flags;
>>>>> It would be nice to make this have type `enum ctl_table_flags', but I
>>>>> guess there's then no reliable way of forcing it to be 16-bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess this is the best we can do...
>>>>>
>>>> We can add this to the enum:
>>>>
>>>> enum ctl_table_flags {
>>>> CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE = BIT(0),
>>>> + __CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_MAX = BIT(16),
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then also:
>>>>
>>>> #define CTL_TABLE_FLAGS_ALL ((BIT(__CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_MAX + 1))-1)
>>>>
>>>> at the end of the definition, then a helper which can be used during
>>>> parsing:
>>>>
>>>> static int check_ctl_table_flags(u16 flags)
>>>> {
>>>> if (flags & ~(CTL_TABLE_FLAGS_ALL))
>>>> return -ERANGE;
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Waiman please evaluate and add.
>>> Also, I guess we have ... max bit used and max allowed (16) really, where one is the
>>> max allowed bit field given current definitions, the other is the max flag possible
>>> setting in the future. We might as well go with the smaller one, which is the current
>>> max, so it can just be
>>>
>>> enum ctl_table_flags {
>>> CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE = BIT(0),
>>> __CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_MAX = BIT(1),
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>> #define CTL_TABLE_FLAGS_ALL ((BIT(__CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_MAX))-1)
>>>
>>> That way we just check against the actual max defined, now the max allowed on
>>> the entire flag setting.
>>>
>>> Luis
>> Yes, I can certainly add check to see if the flags are out of range.
>> However, I would like to know your opinion of what to do when an invalid
>> flag bit is set. Do we just print a warning in the ring buffer or fail
>> the registration of the ctl table?
> We should fail setting. See sysctl_check_table_array(), that should just
> reject the entry.
>
> Luis

OK, got it.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 22:41    [W:0.058 / U:1.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site