register_sysctl_paths() is only required if your child (directories)
have entries and pid_namespace does not. So use register_sysctl_init()
instead where we don't care about the return value and use
register_sysctl() where we do.
Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
---
kernel/pid_namespace.c | 3 +--
kernel/pid_sysctl.h | 3 +--
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/pid_namespace.c b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
index 46e0d5a3f91f..b43eee07b00c 100644
--- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c
+++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
@@ -314,7 +314,6 @@ static struct ctl_table pid_ns_ctl_table[] = {
},
{ }
};
-static struct ctl_path kern_path[] = { { .procname = "kernel", }, { } };
#endif /* CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE */
int reboot_pid_ns(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, int cmd)
@@ -473,7 +472,7 @@ static __init int pid_namespaces_init(void)
pid_ns_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(pid_namespace, SLAB_PANIC | SLAB_ACCOUNT);
#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
- register_sysctl_paths(kern_path, pid_ns_ctl_table);
+ register_sysctl_init("kernel", pid_ns_ctl_table);
#endif
register_pid_ns_sysctl_table_vm();
diff --git a/kernel/pid_sysctl.h b/kernel/pid_sysctl.h
index e22d072e1e24..d67a4d45bb42 100644
--- a/kernel/pid_sysctl.h
+++ b/kernel/pid_sysctl.h
@@ -46,10 +46,9 @@ static struct ctl_table pid_ns_ctl_table_vm[] = {
},
{ }
};
-static struct ctl_path vm_path[] = { { .procname = "vm", }, { } };
static inline void register_pid_ns_sysctl_table_vm(void)
{
- register_sysctl_paths(vm_path, pid_ns_ctl_table_vm);
+ register_sysctl("vm", pid_ns_ctl_table_vm);
}
#else
static inline void initialize_memfd_noexec_scope(struct pid_namespace *ns) {}
--
2.39.1On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:28 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> register_sysctl_paths() is only required if your child (directories)
> have entries and pid_namespace does not. So use register_sysctl_init()
> instead where we don't care about the return value and use
> register_sysctl() where we do.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/pid_namespace.c | 3 +--
> kernel/pid_sysctl.h | 3 +--
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/pid_namespace.c b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> index 46e0d5a3f91f..b43eee07b00c 100644
> --- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> +++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> @@ -314,7 +314,6 @@ static struct ctl_table pid_ns_ctl_table[] = {
> },
> { }
> };
> -static struct ctl_path kern_path[] = { { .procname = "kernel", }, { } };
> #endif /* CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE */
>
> int reboot_pid_ns(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, int cmd)
> @@ -473,7 +472,7 @@ static __init int pid_namespaces_init(void)
> pid_ns_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(pid_namespace, SLAB_PANIC | SLAB_ACCOUNT);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
> - register_sysctl_paths(kern_path, pid_ns_ctl_table);
> + register_sysctl_init("kernel", pid_ns_ctl_table);
> #endif
>
> register_pid_ns_sysctl_table_vm();
> diff --git a/kernel/pid_sysctl.h b/kernel/pid_sysctl.h
> index e22d072e1e24..d67a4d45bb42 100644
> --- a/kernel/pid_sysctl.h
> +++ b/kernel/pid_sysctl.h
> @@ -46,10 +46,9 @@ static struct ctl_table pid_ns_ctl_table_vm[] = {
> },
> { }
> };
> -static struct ctl_path vm_path[] = { { .procname = "vm", }, { } };
> static inline void register_pid_ns_sysctl_table_vm(void)
> {
> - register_sysctl_paths(vm_path, pid_ns_ctl_table_vm);
> + register_sysctl("vm", pid_ns_ctl_table_vm);
> }
> #else
> static inline void initialize_memfd_noexec_scope(struct pid_namespace *ns) {}
> --
> 2.39.1
>
Acked-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:13:54PM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:28 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > > kernel/pid_sysctl.h | 3 +-- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > Acked-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> Andrew, kernel/pid_sysctl.h is new, not on v6.3-rc1 and so I cannot carry this on sysctl-next. Can you carry this patch on your tree? I see Eric Biggers already took in the fs-verity patch, so I will drop that from my queue. I can take the rest in this series. I will also hold off on the last patch which deprecates the routine register_sysctl_paths() until after say the first part of the merge window. This will allow all of our trees to work on linux-next without conflict. Let me know if this is OK with you and Eric! Luis
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:11:27PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:13:54PM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:28 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > > > kernel/pid_sysctl.h | 3 +-- > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > Acked-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> > > Andrew, kernel/pid_sysctl.h is new, not on v6.3-rc1 and so I cannot > carry this on sysctl-next. Can you carry this patch on your tree? > > I see Eric Biggers already took in the fs-verity patch, so I will drop > that from my queue. > > I can take the rest in this series. > > I will also hold off on the last patch which deprecates the routine > register_sysctl_paths() until after say the first part of the merge > window. > > This will allow all of our trees to work on linux-next without conflict. > > Let me know if this is OK with you and Eric! > That's fine with me. I applied the fsverity patch based on your cover letter that said it was okay (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230302202826.776286-1-mcgrof@kernel.org). If you'd like to take all the patches so that you can remove register_sysctl_paths() in the same cycle, that would be fine too; it's up to you. - Eric
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 08:14:33PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:11:27PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:13:54PM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 12:28 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > kernel/pid_sysctl.h | 3 +-- > > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > Acked-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> > > > > Andrew, kernel/pid_sysctl.h is new, not on v6.3-rc1 and so I cannot > > carry this on sysctl-next. Can you carry this patch on your tree? > > > > I see Eric Biggers already took in the fs-verity patch, so I will drop > > that from my queue. > > > > I can take the rest in this series. > > > > I will also hold off on the last patch which deprecates the routine > > register_sysctl_paths() until after say the first part of the merge > > window. > > > > This will allow all of our trees to work on linux-next without conflict. > > > > Let me know if this is OK with you and Eric! > > > > That's fine with me. I applied the fsverity patch based on your cover letter > that said it was okay > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230302202826.776286-1-mcgrof@kernel.org). Yeah it perfectly fine! > If you'd > like to take all the patches so that you can remove register_sysctl_paths() in > the same cycle, that would be fine too; it's up to you. Nah it's fine, no rush in this. One small step at a time. Luis
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 14:11:27 -0800 Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > Andrew, kernel/pid_sysctl.h is new, not on v6.3-rc1 and so I cannot > carry this on sysctl-next. Can you carry this patch on your tree? Sure, no probs.
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:27:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 14:11:27 -0800 Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote: > > > Andrew, kernel/pid_sysctl.h is new, not on v6.3-rc1 and so I cannot > > carry this on sysctl-next. Can you carry this patch on your tree? > > Sure, no probs. Andrew, this one patch will have to go through your tree as kernel/pid_sysctl.h only exist on your tree. I'll drop it on my end! Thanks! Luis
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.