On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:48:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 31-03-20 09:42:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > [...] > > > Should we not do this, we'll have to live with the consequences of > > > supporting the full swoop of sysctls are boot params, whatever > > > consequences those may be. > > > > Of course when the first user tries to set some particular sysctl as boot param > > and finds and reports it doesn't work as intended, then it can be fixed or > > blacklisted and it can't break anyone else? > > Absolutely agreed. I would be really careful to not overengineer this > whole thing. Right -- this is supposed to be _simple_, and I think that's the primary benefit here. If we encounter problems we can fix those cases. The careful place, I think, needs to be with converting existing boot params to be aliases. That's when timing considerations need to be taken into account carefully. -- Kees Cook
