Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:47:10 +0400 | From | Stanislav Kinsbursky <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/11] SYSCTL: export root and set handling routines |
| |
11.01.2012 02:39, Eric W. Biederman пишет: > Stanislav Kinsbursky<skinsbursky@parallels.com> writes: > >> 03.01.2012 07:49, Eric W. Biederman пишет: >>> Stanislav Kinsbursky<skinsbursky@parallels.com> writes: >>> >>>> 19.12.2011 20:37, Eric W. Biederman пишет: >>>>> Stanislav Kinsbursky<skinsbursky@parallels.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> Doing that independently of the rest of the sysctls is pretty horrible >>>>> and confusing to users. What I am planning might suit your needs and >>>>> if not we need to talk some more about how to get the vfs to do >>>>> something reasonable. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, Eric. Would be glad to discuss your sysctls plans. >>>> But actually you already know my needs: I would like to make sysctls work in the >>>> way like sysfs does: i.e. content of files depends on mount maker - >>>> not viewer. >>> >>> What drives the desire to have sysctls depend on the mount maker? >> >> Because we can (will, actually) have nested fs root's for containers. IOW, >> container's root will be accessible from it's creator context. And I want to >> tune container's fs from creators context. > > Tuning the child context from the parent context is an entirely > reasonable thing to do. To affect a namespace that is not yours > the requirement is simply that we don't use current to lookup the > sysctl. So what I am proposing should work for your case. >
Could you explain, what are you proposing? I still don't know any details about it.
>>> Especially what drives that desire not to have it have a /proc/<pid>/sys >>> directory that reflects the sysctls for a given process. >>> >> >> This is not so important for me, where to access sysctl's. But I'm worrying >> about backward compatibility. IOW, I'm afraid of changing path >> "/proc/sys/sunprc/*" to "/proc/<pid>/sys/sunrpc". This would break a lot of >> user-space programs. > > The part that keeps it all working is by adding a symlink from /proc/sys > to /proc/self/sys. That technique has worked well for /proc/net, and I > don't expect there will be any problems with /proc/sys either. It is > possible but is very rare for the introduction of a symlink in a path > to cause problems. >
Probably I don't understand you, but as I see it now, symlink to "/proc/self/" is unacceptable because of the following: 1) will be used current context (any) instead of desired one 1) if CT has other pid namespace - then we just have broken link.
> Eric >
-- Best regards, Stanislav Kinsbursky -- 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/
| |