On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:08 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 08:42:42AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 3:47 AM Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:26 AM Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Add a const int array containing the most commonly used values, > > > > some macros to refer more easily to the correct array member, > > > > and use them instead of creating a local one for every object file. > > > > > > > > > > Ok it seems that this simply can't be done, because there are at least > > > two points where extra1,2 are set to a non const struct: > > > in ip_vs_control_net_init_sysctl() it's assigned to struct netns_ipvs, > > > while in mpls_dev_sysctl_register() it's assigned to a struct mpls_dev > > > and a struct net. > > > > Why can't these be converted to const also? I don't see the pointer > > changing anywhere. They're created in one place and never changed. > > That's not true; I thought the same thing, but you need to see how > they're used in the functions they're called. > > proc_do_defense_mode(struct ctl_table *table, int write, > struct netns_ipvs *ipvs = table->extra2; > update_defense_level(ipvs); > static void update_defense_level(struct netns_ipvs *ipvs) > spin_lock(&ipvs->dropentry_lock); Indeed. I followed the same code path until I found this: 167 ipvs->drop_rate = 0; 168 ipvs->sysctl_drop_packet = 1; so I think that this can't be done like this. Mind if I send a v5 without the const qualifier? At least to know the kbuildbot opinion. Regards, -- Matteo Croce per aspera ad upstream
