"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
