lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 22/23] sysctl arm: Remove binary sysctl support
    From
    Date
    Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> writes:

    > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:05:05 -0800
    > ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
    >
    >> >
    >> > The practical difference is that /proc support now must be compiled
    >> > in to support sys_sysctl.
    >>
    >> But thanks for the reminder that I need to go into glibc and fix this
    >> before we disable the sys_sysctl emulation by default.
    >
    > how are you dealing with existing glibcs ? Or with static linked
    > binaries? or.. or ..
    >
    > breaking a heavily used ABI like this is not going to be pretty
    > or even sane, no matter which way you hate the current one.

    sysctl_binary.c has all of the code to continue to provide the
    existing ABI.

    sys_sysctl is not heavily used at all, and this is the responsible
    removal of a practically unused ABI. Last I check (and this was
    before I shouted to the world that sys_sysctl is going away) I could
    count on one hand all of the users of sys_sysctl.

    /proc/sys will definitely continue to exist.

    I just took a look and the use in linux threads that I don't warn
    about is used by glibc-2.8 but not by glibc-2.10. glibc-2.11 has just
    been released. so by next year when the removal is scheduled we are
    looking at multiple releases of glibc that don't use sys_sysctl. So I
    expect shortly I can warn about all uses of sys_sysctl without anyone
    seeing a warning.

    The one unfixed case I know about is fixing ioperm on arm, in the glibc
    ports tree, and that will need to happen before sys_sysctl is disabled
    by default. Which is all I intend to do when we reach that point in
    feature removal schedule now that I have refactored the code so that
    sys_sysctl no longer imposes a maintenance burden on the sane sysctl
    users.

    I don't hate sysctl, in fact for global tuneables I would argue for
    all it's faults sysctl it is one of the better interfaces we have. I
    just figure the implementation needs to be optimized for the way
    sysctl is used today, the via /proc/sys.

    Eric


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-09 04:29    [W:4.517 / U:0.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site