Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:07 PM David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 6/14/19 8:01 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:41 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 6/11/19 5:08 PM, Matteo Croce wrote: >> > >> > It clearly shouldn't select PROC_SYSCTL, but I think it should not >> > have a 'depends on' statement either. I think the correct fix for the >> > original problem would have been something like >> > >> > --- a/net/mpls/af_mpls.c >> > +++ b/net/mpls/af_mpls.c >> > @@ -2659,6 +2659,9 @@ static int mpls_net_init(struct net *net) >> > net->mpls.ip_ttl_propagate = 1; >> > net->mpls.default_ttl = 255; >> > >> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL)) >> > + return 0; >> > + >> > table = kmemdup(mpls_table, sizeof(mpls_table), GFP_KERNEL); >> > if (table == NULL) >> > return -ENOMEM; >> > >> >> Without sysctl, the entire mpls_router code is disabled. So if sysctl is >> not enabled there is no point in building this file. > > Ok, I see. > > There are a couple of other drivers that use 'depends on SYSCTL', > which may be the right thing to do here. In theory, one can still > build a kernel with CONFIG_SYSCTRL_SYSCALL=y and no > procfs. Which reminds me. I really need to write the patch to remove CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL. Unless I have missed something we have finally reached default off in all of the distributions so no one should care. Eric
