[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46DA7A4C.6080501@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:54:36 +0100
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl: Deprecate sys_sysctl in a user space visible
fashion.
Rob Landley wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007 5:16:03 pm Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> writes:
>>> A lot of embedded people like to configure /proc out of the kernel for
>>> space reasons. This would make that noticeably more painful.
>> I had a patch for a sysctl_name(2) for this a long time ago.
>> If it was a serious issue that could be reintroduced.
>>
>> BTW sysctl(2) only needs to be quiet for a single sysctl used
>> by glibc.
>>
>> -Andi
>
> Yeah, I found it:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/7/10/345
>
> I think that if /proc/sys could be broken out as a separate filesystem, and it
> was small and simple, the embedded people would probably be happy. Is your
> patch significantly smaller than such a filesystem would be? (Keeping in
> mind that the smallest thing you can do is run from initramfs, and I think
> that's pulling in libfs already...)
>
IMO, the big problem with /proc/sys (and, for that matter, /sys) is
mainly that they have to live in the process namespace, which is highly
awkward when one uses chroot().
One way to solve *that* might be a system call to get a file descriptor
to the root of sysfs or procsysfs which can be used with openat(). That
has its own perils, of course...
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists