* Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/05/2012 03:55 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Nick Bowler<nbowler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>But this is a brand new feature that changes longstanding behaviour of > >>various syscalls. Making it default to enabled is rather mean to users > >>(since it will tend to get enabled by "oldconfig") and seems almost > >>guaranteed to cause regressions. > > > > I couldn't disagree more. There has been zero evidence of > > this change causing anything but regressions in _attacks_. > > :P If anything, I think there should be no CONFIG and no > > sysctl, and it should be entirely non-optional. But since > > this patch needs consensus, I have provided knobs to control > > it. > > I agree with you, Kees. > > The behaviour introduced by this patch should produce so few > issues, that the new behaviour should probably be on by > default. Up to the point people report regressions. And yes, I think Kees is perfectly right that the setting of the default should be evidence based. (Assuming Al and Linus is fine with the whole concept.) The only specific counter-argument I can see is the spinlock performance impact I raised during review. I think we can (and should) live with that, and it's probably fixable, BYMMV. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
