[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] net: Implement the per network namespace sysctl infrastructure
    "Serge E. Hallyn" <> writes:

    > Hey Eric,
    > the patches look nice.
    > The hand-forcing of the passed-in net_ns into a copy of current->nsproxy
    > does make it seem like nsproxy may not be the best choice of what to
    > pass in. Doesn't only net_sysctl_root->lookup() look at the argument?

    Yes. Although I call it from __register_sysctl_paths.

    > But I assume you don't want to be more general than sending in a
    > nsproxy so as to dissuade abuse of this interface for needlessly complex
    > sysctl interfaces?

    A bit of that. I would love to pass in a task_struct so you can use
    anything from a task. The trouble is I don't have any task_structs or
    nsproxys with the proper value at the point where I am first setting
    this up. Further I have to have the full sysctl lookup working or I
    could not call sysctl_check.

    > (Well I expect that'll become clear once the the patches using this
    > come out.)
    > Are you planning to use this infrastructure for the uts and ipc
    > sysctls as well?

    Yes. Where it comes in especially useful, is I can move /proc/sys
    to /proc/sys/<tgid>/task/<pid>/sys. And get a particular processes
    view of sysctl.

    We also get a little more reuse of common functions.

    Otherwise Pavel does have a point that using this for uts and ipc
    is not a savings lines of code wise.

    After having seen Pavel changes I am asking myself if there is a sane
    way to remove the ctl_name argument from the ctl_path.

    Anyway where I am with the nsproxy question was that I don't
    see anything easily better. What I have works and gets the job
    done, and doesn't have any module unload races or holes where a sloppy
    programmer can mess up the sysctl tree. We needed a solution.
    Trying any harder to find something better would take ages. So
    I figured this implementation was good enough.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-30 22:55    [W:0.020 / U:1.916 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site