On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:50:01PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-12-05 14:33:38-0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > @@ -231,7 +231,8 @@ static int insert_header(struct ctl_dir *dir, struct ctl_table_header *header)
> > > > return -EROFS;
> > > >
> > > > /* Am I creating a permanently empty directory? */
> > > > - if (sysctl_is_perm_empty_ctl_header(header)) {
> > > > + if (header->ctl_table == sysctl_mount_point ||
> > > > + sysctl_is_perm_empty_ctl_header(header)) {
> > > > if (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&dir->root))
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > sysctl_set_perm_empty_ctl_header(dir_h);
> > >
> > > While you're at it.
> >
> > This hunk is completely gone in v3/the code that you merged.
>
> It is worse in that it is not obvious:
>
> + if (table == sysctl_mount_point)
> + sysctl_set_perm_empty_ctl_header(head);
Notice that the test is done on the header and the set is done on the
dir_h.
I mention this because here you wrote:
"sysctl_set_perm_empty_ctl_header(head)"
instead of
"sysctl_set_perm_empty_ctl_header(dir_h)"
dir_h and head are different.
Was this your concern? or did I miss your point?
>
> > Which kind of unsafety do you envision here?
>
> Making the code obvious during patch review hy this is needed /
> special, and if we special case this, why not remove enum, and make it
> specific to only that one table. The catch is that it is not
> immediately obvious that we actually call
> sysctl_set_perm_empty_ctl_header() in other places, and it begs the
> question if this can be cleaned up somehow.
>
> Luis
--
Joel Granados
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
