Re: [PATCH 11/14] networking: Update to register_net_sysctl_sz

[David Ahern]

On 7/26/23 12:05 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 04:06:31PM +0200, Joel Granados wrote:
>> This is part of the effort to remove the sentinel (last empty) element
>> from the ctl_table arrays. We update to the new function and pass it the
>> array size. Care is taken to mirror the NULL assignments with a size of
>> zero (for the unprivileged users). An additional size function was added
>> to the following files in order to calculate the size of an array that
>> is defined in another file:
>>     include/net/ipv6.h
>>     net/ipv6/icmp.c
>>     net/ipv6/route.c
>>     net/ipv6/sysctl_net_ipv6.c
>>
> 
> Same here as with the other patches, the "why" and size impact should go here.
> I'll skip mentioning that in the other patches.
> 
>> diff --git a/net/mpls/af_mpls.c b/net/mpls/af_mpls.c
>> index bf6e81d56263..5bad14b3c71e 100644
>> --- a/net/mpls/af_mpls.c
>> +++ b/net/mpls/af_mpls.c
>> @@ -1396,6 +1396,40 @@ static const struct ctl_table mpls_dev_table[] = {
>>  	{ }
>>  };
>>  
>> +static int mpls_platform_labels(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>> +				void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos);
>> +#define MPLS_NS_SYSCTL_OFFSET(field)		\
>> +	(&((struct net *)0)->field)
>> +
>> +static const struct ctl_table mpls_table[] = {
>> +	{
>> +		.procname	= "platform_labels",
>> +		.data		= NULL,
>> +		.maxlen		= sizeof(int),
>> +		.mode		= 0644,
>> +		.proc_handler	= mpls_platform_labels,
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.procname	= "ip_ttl_propagate",
>> +		.data		= MPLS_NS_SYSCTL_OFFSET(mpls.ip_ttl_propagate),
>> +		.maxlen		= sizeof(int),
>> +		.mode		= 0644,
>> +		.proc_handler	= proc_dointvec_minmax,
>> +		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
>> +		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.procname	= "default_ttl",
>> +		.data		= MPLS_NS_SYSCTL_OFFSET(mpls.default_ttl),
>> +		.maxlen		= sizeof(int),
>> +		.mode		= 0644,
>> +		.proc_handler	= proc_dointvec_minmax,
>> +		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ONE,
>> +		.extra2		= &ttl_max,
>> +	},
>> +	{ }
>> +};
> 
> Unless we hear otherwise from networking folks, I think this move alone
> should probably go as a separate patch with no functional changes to
> make the changes easier to review / bisect.
> 

+1