[PATCH v3 00/11] sysctl: treewide: constify ctl_table argument of sysctl handlers

[Kees Cook]

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 09:32:40PM +0200, Joel Granados wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 11:51:18AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Hi Kees,
> > 
> > On 2024-05-08 10:11:35+0000, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 08:12:34PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:54:35 +0200 Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > > The series was split from my larger series sysctl-const series [0].
> > > > > It only focusses on the proc_handlers but is an important step to be
> > > > > able to move all static definitions of ctl_table into .rodata.
> > > > 
> > > > Split this per subsystem, please.
> > > 
> > > I've done a few painful API transitions before, and I don't think the
> > > complexity of these changes needs a per-subsystem constification pass. I
> > > think this series is the right approach, but that patch 11 will need
> > > coordination with Linus. We regularly do system-wide prototype changes
> > > like this right at the end of the merge window before -rc1 comes out.
> > 
> > That sounds good.
> > 
> > > The requirements are pretty simple: it needs to be a obvious changes
> > > (this certainly is) and as close to 100% mechanical as possible. I think
> > > patch 11 easily qualifies. Linus should be able to run the same Coccinelle
> > > script and get nearly the same results, etc. And all the other changes
> > > need to have landed. This change also has no "silent failure" conditions:
> > > anything mismatched will immediately stand out.
> > 
> > Unfortunately coccinelle alone is not sufficient, as some helpers with
> > different prototypes are called by handlers and themselves are calling
> > handler and therefore need to change in the same commit.
> > But if I add a diff for those on top of the coccinelle script to the
> > changelog it should be obvious.
> Judging by Kees' comment on "100% mechanical", it might be better just
> having the diff and have Linus apply than rather than two step process?
> Have not these types of PRs, so am interested in what folks think.

I tried to soften it a little with my "*close* to 100%" modifier, and
I think that patch basically matched that requirement, and where it had
manual changes it was detailed in the commit log. I only split out the
seccomp part because it could actually stand alone.

So yeah, let's get the last of the subsystem specific stuff landed after
-rc1, and it should be possible to finish it all up for 6.11. Yay! :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook