Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:09:01 +0000
From:   Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: sysctl: make drop_caches write-only
Message-ID: <20191101110901.GB690103@chrisdown.name>
References: <20191031221602.9375-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
 <20191031162825.a545a5d4d8567368501769bd@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191031162825.a545a5d4d8567368501769bd@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hm, not sure why my client didn't show this reply.

Andrew Morton writes:
>Risk: some (odd) userspace code will break.  Fixable by manually chmodding
>it back again.

The only scenario I can construct in my head is that someone has built 
something to watch drop_caches for modification, but we already have the kmsg 
output for that.

>Reward: very little.
>
>Is the reward worth the risk?

There is evidence that this has already caused confusion[0] for many, judging 
by the number of views and votes. I think the reward is higher than stated 
here, since it makes the intent and lack of persistent API in the API clearer, 
and less likely to cause confusion in future.

0: https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/17936/10762