On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 10:37:33AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> That would probably break near all init scripts out there.
>
> Can't the file system not just be mounted with /proc together?
Won't be fun to implement. Really. BTW, I really wonder what will
happen if two processes step on a magic
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 09:00:10PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:56:33PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > - I think all that is left is superblock handling and some backward
> > compatibility magic. (Using the follow_link trick to automatically
> > mount /proc/sys)
>
>
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:56:33PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> - I think all that is left is superblock handling and some backward
>> compatibility magic. (Using the follow_link trick to automatically
>> mount /proc/sys)
>
> NAK. Let's explicitly m
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:56:33PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> - I think all that is left is superblock handling and some backward
> compatibility magic. (Using the follow_link trick to automatically
> mount /proc/sys)
NAK. Let's explicitly mount this stuff in init scripts; it won't bre
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> If you're going to add a new api, you might as well go with the
> sysctl-by-name
> patch above, which looks reasonably small and simple to me from a very quick
> glance at a 2.6.0-era patch.
>
> The advantage of breaking /proc/sys into a separate files
On Sunday 02 September 2007 3:54:36 am H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 September 2007 5:16:03 pm Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> A lot of embedded people like to configure /proc out of the kernel for
> >>> space reasons. This would
Rob Landley wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 5:16:03 pm Andi Kleen wrote:
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
A lot of embedded people like to configure /proc out of the kernel for
space reasons. This would make that noticeably more painful.
I had a patch for a sysctl_name(2) for this
On Saturday 01 September 2007 5:16:03 pm Andi Kleen wrote:
> Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A lot of embedded people like to configure /proc out of the kernel for
> > space reasons. This would make that noticeably more painful.
>
> I had a patch for a sysctl_name(2) for this a long ti
Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> A lot of embedded people like to configure /proc out of the kernel for space
> reasons. This would make that noticeably more painful.
I had a patch for a sysctl_name(2) for this a long time ago.
If it was a serious issue that could be reintroduced.
B
On Thursday 30 August 2007 1:34:02 pm Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:32:11PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > (If sysctlfs wasn't part of proc, that would be less of an issue, but we
> > need union mounts for that...)
>
> Not at all. all sysctls are under /proc/sys/
Ah, right.
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:32:11PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> (If sysctlfs wasn't part of proc, that would be less of an issue, but we need
>> union mounts for that...)
>
> Not at all. all sysctls are under /proc/sys/
Yes. So all we really need
On Aug 28 2007 21:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>> Umm, no way we're ever going to remove a syscall like this. Please
>> stop this deprecration crap. Just make sure no ones adds more binary
>> sysctls.
>
>I think it's worth a try. It might take two, three or five years, who
>knows? If it turns
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:32:11PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> (If sysctlfs wasn't part of proc, that would be less of an issue, but we need
> union mounts for that...)
Not at all. all sysctls are under /proc/sys/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the b
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 8:31:45 pm H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Umm, no way we're ever going to remove a syscall like this.
> >
> > If someone besides me cares about more then rhetoric I will be happy
> > to reconsider and
David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> This isn't "Oh some apps are using it let's get them to stop, because
>> it is inconvenient". This is "No apps seems to be using this, we
>> keep goofing up the maintenance and no one notices, and so it is
>> likely a source
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
This isn't "Oh some apps are using it let's get them to stop, because
it is inconvenient". This is "No apps seems to be using this, we
keep goofing up the maintenance and no one notices, and so it is
likely a source of security problems and other nasties"
This firs
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
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:46:04 +0100 Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> adequate job of warning our users. A printk when we run a program
> > >> that uses the binary interface and an long enough interval the warning
> > >> makes it to the Enterprise kernels before we remove the interface
>
"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 susp
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
support
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> adequate job of warning our users. A printk when we run a program
>> >> that uses the binary interface and an long enough interval the warning
>> >> makes it to the Enterprise kernels before we remove the interface
>> >> should be sufficient.
>
> The ent
> >> adequate job of warning our users. A printk when we run a program
> >> that uses the binary interface and an long enough interval the warning
> >> makes it to the Enterprise kernels before we remove the interface
> >> should be sufficient.
The enterprise products will probably just remove th
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:40:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman)
> wrote:
>
>> +static int deprecated_sysctl_warning(struct __sysctl_args *args)
>> +{
>> +static int msg_count;
>> +int name[CTL_MAXNAME];
>> +int i;
>> +
>> +/* Rea
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:04:59 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:40:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > +When: September 2010
> > +Option: CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL
> > +Why: The same information is available in a more convenient from
> > +
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:40:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> +static int deprecated_sysctl_warning(struct __sysctl_args *args)
> +{
> + static int msg_count;
> + int name[CTL_MAXNAME];
> + int i;
> +
> + /* Read in the sysctl name for better debug message loggi
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Umm, no way we're ever going to remove a syscall like this.
>>
>> If someone besides me cares about more then rhetoric I will be happy
>> to reconsider and several years
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Umm, no way we're ever going to remove a syscall like this.
If someone besides me cares about more then rhetoric I will be happy
to reconsider and several years is plenty of time to find that out.
I aborted the removal l
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Umm, no way we're ever going to remove a syscall like this.
If someone besides me cares about more then rhetoric I will be happy
to reconsider and several years is plenty of time to find that out.
I aborted the removal last time precisely because
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:40:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> +When:September 2010
> +Option: CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL
> +Why: The same information is available in a more convenient from
> + /proc/sys, and none of the sysctl variables appear to be
> + important performance wise.
After adding checking to register_sysctl_table and finding a whole new
set of bugs. Missed by countless code reviews and testers I have
finally lost patience with the binary sysctl interface.
The binary sysctl interface has been sort of deprecated for years and
finding a user space program that
30 matches
Mail list logo
