Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:12:21 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, yzaikin@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, pjt@google.com,
        liu.hailong6@zte.com.cn, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        sre@kernel.org, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
        pmladek@suse.com, senozhatsky@chromium.org, wangqing@vivo.com,
        bcrl@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz,
        amir73il@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] sysctl: Move some boundary constants from
 sysctl.c to sysctl_vals
Message-ID: <YZ7G1YsmR8TrbfbK@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20211123202347.818157-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20211123202347.818157-3-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <87k0gygnq4.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
 <a2d657e4-617a-ff4b-1334-928560701589@huawei.com>
 <87zgpte9o4.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87zgpte9o4.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:38:19AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Looking a little more.  I think it makes sense to do something like:
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> index 1fa2b69c6fc3..c299009421ea 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> @@ -121,8 +121,8 @@ struct ctl_table {
>         struct ctl_table *child;        /* Deprecated */
>         proc_handler *proc_handler;     /* Callback for text formatting */
>         struct ctl_table_poll *poll;
> -       void *extra1;
> -       void *extra2;
> +       long min;
> +       long max;
>  } __randomize_layout;
> 
> Any chance we can do that for a cleanup instead of extending sysctl_vals?

Essentially the change is *big*. We either do that *not yet implemented*
change *now, and then have to rebase all the non-upstream work to adapt
to that, or we do that after the cleanup.

Both I think are going to cause some suffering. I'd prefer to do it
after though. Would you be OK with that?

  Luis