Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:04:08 -0400 | From | Amit Gud <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] sysctl for the latecomers |
| |
Chase Venters wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Chase Venters wrote: > Btw, wanted to add some comments on the specific approach: > > 1. A ring hard-coded to 32 elements is IMO unuseable. While it may not > be a real limit for what use case you have in mind, if it's in the > kernel sooner or later someone else is going to use it and get bitten. > Imagine if they wrote in 33 entries, and the first one was some critical > security setting that ended up getting silently ignored... > > 2. On the other hand, allowing it to grow unbounded is equally > unacceptable without a mechanism to list and clear the current "pending" > sysctl values. Unfortunately, at this point, you're starting to violate > "KISS". >
You figured it right, theres no "correct" number of elements that I could adhere to.
> Are the modules you refer to inserted during init at all? Because it > seems like it would be a lot more appropriate to just move sysctl until > after loading the modules, or perhaps running it again once they are > loaded. >
I have a case where sunrpc module gets inserted and sunrpc.tcp_slot_table_entries parameter is to be set _before_ nfs module is inserted. I agree that for this particular case user-space works (either udev rule, or modprobe.conf or sysctl after modprobe in initscripts), but am on a lookout for a more generic way for handling such cases - be it user-space or otherwise.
AG -- May the source be with you. http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~gud
- 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/
| |