[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CBE86E0.3050505@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:06:24 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andy Shevchenko <ext-andriy.shevchenko@...ia.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sysctl: remove sysctl syscall
On 10/20/10 00:00, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge the last and user of sys_sysctl is the glibc
> ioperm (my apologies I mispoke when I said iopl) implementation on arm.
> Not that people run around calling ioperm very often in any distro.
I saw that in Changelog of glibc too, but that was back to 2000, 10 years
past, I don't see any code using sysctl() in glibc now, except sys_sysctl()
itself, of course.
>
> All of that said I think disabling sys_sysctl by default now is totally
> reasonable. If there is a percentage in removing the code we can worry
> about that later. Perhaps we should add a CONFIG_CRUFT and move
> sys_sysctl under there. Binary compatibility that nothing needs but
> that we actually have code for just in case.
But you put sysctl in features-removal-schedule.txt 3 years ago. :)
I believe they should see the kernel warnings if they are still using
sysctl.
Thanks.
--
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