* Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > + if (!sysctl_modify_ldt) {
> > > + printk_ratelimited(KERN_INFO
> > > + "Denied a call to modify_ldt() from %s[%d] (uid: %d)."
> > > + " Adjust the modify_ldt sysctl if this was not an"
> >
> > Would it really be so difficult to write this as:
> >
> > Set "sys.kernel.modify_ldt = 1" in /etc/sysctl.conf if this was not an
> > exploit attempt.
>
> It's just a matter of taste. Normally I consider the kernel distro-agnostic
> so I
> don't like to suggest one way to adjust sysctls nor to reference config
> files.
> Here we're in a case where only standard distro users may hit the issue, and
> users of embedded distros will not face this message or will easily translate
> it
> into their respective configuration scheme. So OK for this one.
So it's a side issue, but it's not a matter of taste at all: why should we end
up
hurting 99% of Linux users (that use regular distros), just to make it slightly
more 'correct' for the weird 1% 'embedded distro' case that decided to put
sysctl
configuration elsewhere?
Users of 'embedded' distros won't normally see kernel messages, and even if
they
do, the message is crystal clear even to them...
Such messages should be as helpful to the regular case as possible. The weird
cases will be OK too: and it does not help to make a message unhelpful for
_both_
cases.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
