Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] utsname namespaces: sysctl hack | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:37:00 -0600 |
| |
Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:52 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> writes: >> >> > Besides ipc and utsnames, can anybody think of some other things in >> > sysctl that we really need to virtualize? >> >> All of the networking entries. > ... >> Only in that you attacked the wrong piece of the puzzle. >> The strategy table entries simply need to die, or be rewritten >> to use the appropriate proc entries. > > If we are limited to ipc, utsname, and network, I'd be worried trying to > justify _too_ much infrastructure. The network namespaces are not going > to be solved any time soon. Why not have something like this which is a > quite simple, understandable, minor hack?
Because it doesn't affect what happens in /proc/sys ! Strategy routines only affect sys_sysctl.
As strategy routines I have no real problems with them. I haven't looked terribly closely yet.
>> The proc entries are the real interface, and the two pieces >> don't share an implementation unfortunately. > > You're saying that the proc interface doesn't use the ->strategy entry? > That isn't what I remember, but I could be completely wrong.
Exactly. I have a patch I will be sending out shortly that make sys_sysctl a compile time option (so we can seriously start killing it) and it compiles out the strategy routines and /proc/sys still works :)
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |