Eric W. Biederman wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Fannin) writes: > > >>The netfilter sysctls in the bridging code don't set strategy routines: >> >> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-call-arptables .3.10.1 >> Missing >>strategy >> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-call-iptables .3.10.2 >> Missing >>strategy >> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-call-ip6tables .3.10.3 >> Missing >>strategy >> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-filter-vlan-tagged .3.10.4 >>Missing strategy >> sysctl table check failed: /net/bridge/bridge-nf-filter-pppoe-tagged .3.10.5 >>Missing strategy >> >> These binary sysctls can't work. The binary sysctl numbers of >>other netfilter sysctls with this problem are being removed. These >>need to go as well. >> >>Signed-off-by: Joseph Fannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Queued for 2.6.24, thanks. > Hmm. This is an interesting case. The proc method is forcing > the integer to be either 0 or 1 in a racy fashion. But none of the > users appear to depend upon that. > > So this is the least broken set of binary sysctls I have seen caught > by my check. > > A really good fix would be to remove the binary side and then to > modify brnf_sysctl_call_tables to allocate a temporary ctl_table and > integer on the stack and only set ctl->data after we have normalized > the written value. But since in practice nothing cares about > the race a better fix probably isn't worth it. I seem to be missing something, the entire brnf_sysctl_call_tables thing looks purely cosmetic to me, wouldn't it be better to simply remove it? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
