Re: [PATCH] kernel/sysctl.c: If "count" including the terminating byte '\0' the write system call should retrun success.

[Sean Fu]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:50:18 +0800
> Sean Fu <fxinrong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>> <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On August 24, 2015 6:57:57 PM MDT, Sean Fu <fxinrong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>An application from HuaWei which works fine on 2.6 encounters this
>> >>issue on 3.0 or later kernel.
>> >
>> > My sympathies.  Being stuck with a 3rd party application you can barely talk about that has been broken for 5years and no one reported it.
>> >
>> > Ordinarily we would fix a regression like this. As it has been 5years the challenge now is how do we tell if there are applications that depend on the current behavior.
>> >
>> > Before we can change the behavior back we need a convincing argument that we won't cause a regression in another application by making the change.
>> >
>> > I do not see how such an argument can be made.  So you have my sympathies but I do not see how we can help you.
>> We should consider this patch basing on my following arguments.
>> 1 Different version kernel should keep consistent on this behavior.
>
> The thing is, the above argument is against the patch. The behavior
> changed 2 years ago, and nobody noticed. Changing it back only causes
> more inconsistent behavior.
It is impossible to cause more inconsistent behavior.
it just enhance compatibility(support "xx...x\0").
This patch just modify "proc_wspace_sep" array. and "proc_wspace_sep" is static.
Only "proc_get_long" used this array, "proc_get_long" is also static.
There are only 4 place to call "proc_get_long" in kernel/sysctl.c.
I will prove that these 4 callers have no bad impact later.

>
>
>> 2 This writting behavior on proc file should be same with writting on
>> regular file as possible as we can.
>
> Writing to a proc file causes kernel actions. Writing to a regular file
> just saves data. That's not an argument here.
>
>> 3 This patch does not have any potential compatibility risk with 3rd
>> party application.
>
> How do you know that?
I will prove that all other write usage is not impacted later.

Thanks for all reply.

Sean
>
> -- Steve
>
>> 4 Support writting "1...\0" to proc file.
>>
>> >
>> > Eric
>> >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/