Chris Cappuccio <[email protected]> wrote:
> Vitaliy Makkoveev [[email protected]] wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 26 Apr 2021, at 01:43, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am not a fan of this strange behaviour, where the min+max values
> > > have additional behaviours. It is too surprising, and surprising
> > > often turns into error-prone.
> >
> > Agreed. Also according sysctl_int_bounded() code this behaviour looks
> > like non obvious side effect.
> >
>
> Would 0, 0 min, max be a simple and obvious way to say "read only" ?
That is not as terrible.
Or maybe a define like:
+ #define SYSCTL_BOUNDED_ARR_READONLY 0,0
int sysctl_bounded_arr(const struct sysctl_bounded_args *, u_int,
int *, u_int, void *, size_t *, void *, size_t);
Which can then be used in-place without confusion.
But whatever we do, it must be documented clearly.
