On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:00:07PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> My hypothesis. No one cares now.
> >>
> >> My observation. The way we have been maintaining the binary sysctl
> >> side of things using it is asking for your application to be broken in
> >> subtle and nasty ways.
> >>
> >
> > I suspect the right thing to do is simply to make a list of the supported
> > binary
> > sysctls, and automatically verify those numbers. Doing that would alleviate
> > these concerns, wouldn't break anything, and isn't really that hard to do.
>
> Well the list is currently 1200 lines long, with wild cards in it.
> See sysctl_check.c in the -mm tree. I think I have finally found
> all of the binary sysctl numbers that are currently in use but I may
> have missed something. Although that can probably be trimmed a bit
> now that a number of those sysctls have been identified as impossibly
> and always broken
It's not hard to do read-side, right? Take the list of sysctl's, and
create a program which reads it via the binary interface and the /proc
interface, and verify they are the same.
Testing write-side, where we have to worry about permission tests,
making sure the correctr value is set, locking issues, etc., is
admittedly more difficult. My guess though many programs/libraries
are reading from the sysctl interface than writing to it.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
