Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 13:44, Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Have you considered that the new sysctl is "sticky like kexec_load_disabled. >> When the user disables it there is no way to turn it back on until the >> system is rebooted. > > Are you suggesting making this sysctl sticky? Are there any examples of how to > implement a sticky sysctl that can take more than 2 values in case we want to > add an intermediate level that still allows privileged processes to use > io_uring? Also, what would be the use case? Preventing privileged processes > from re-enabling io_uring? See unprivileged_bpf_disabled for an example. I can't speak to the use case for a sticky value. -Jeff
