Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted text
> jfannin@gmail.com (Joseph Fannin) writes:
> 
> 
>>The netfilter sysctls in the bridging code don't set strategy routines:
>>
>> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-call-arptables .3.10.1 Missing
>>strategy
>> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-call-iptables .3.10.2 Missing
>>strategy
>> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-call-ip6tables .3.10.3 Missing
>>strategy
>> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-filter-vlan-tagged .3.10.4
>>Missing strategy
>> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-filter-pppoe-tagged .3.10.5
>>Missing strategy
>>
>>    These binary sysctls can't work. The binary sysctl numbers of
>>other netfilter sysctls with this problem are being removed.  These
>>need to go as well.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Joseph Fannin <jfannin@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>


Queued for 2.6.24, thanks.

quoted text
> Hmm.  This is an interesting case.  The proc method is forcing
> the integer to be either 0 or 1 in a racy fashion.  But none of the
> users appear to depend upon that.
> 
> So this is the least broken set of binary sysctls I have seen caught
> by my check.
> 
> A really good fix would be to remove the binary side and then to
> modify brnf_sysctl_call_tables to allocate a temporary ctl_table and
> integer on the stack and only set ctl->data after we have normalized
> the written value.  But since in practice nothing cares about
> the race a better fix probably isn't worth it.


I seem to be missing something, the entire brnf_sysctl_call_tables
thing looks purely cosmetic to me, wouldn't it be better to simply
remove it?

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/