On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:48:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 31-03-20 09:42:46, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
quoted
quoted
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