Messages in this thread | | | From | "Ulrich Windl" <> | Date | Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:02:38 +0200 | Subject | 2.2: sysctl() dangers |
| |
Hi!
I had a closer look at the sysctl() stuff. I was wondering how to check values, so I looked at the existing code...
...and realized that in many cases the values passed are not checked at all! Furthermore some routines could really have a on-line comment.
I originally thought about writing a wrapper around the do_intverc stuff to check values before they are written to the kernel. That seemed messy.
I'd really like to see a more general framework that has the ability to call a function (pointer) before and after a value has been set (or read).
Another problem seems to be the orthogonality with the capability model: Only the file permissions are used.
Locking: Without proper hooks, a global kernel lock would have to be used (just to be safe).
I wonder whether the sysctl and do_intvercminmax could be rewritten to be more modular and of general use. Writing special code with 80% common for each variable to be set seems quite bad.
I seem unable to do that due to lack of time (in case you wanted to ask).
Regards, Ulrich P.S. Remember I'm not subscribed here, so make sure I can read your comments ;-)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |