On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:03:53PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jacques Gelinas) writes: > > >> 1) set\control > >> 2) get info > >> 3) get command version. > > > > /proc should be used to do most of that.
nope, sysfs might be used for some parts, but there are advantages and disadvantages ... > No, it is a pain for userspace tools to generate the control-commands > and yet more pain to parse the results: there are lots of syscalls > (open,read,close) involved (which can fail), buffer-sizes can not be > determined in ahead, int->string and string->int conversions are > needed, and the buffer itself must be parsed to get the position of > the values. > > This /proc-parsing method requires a proc-filesystem also, which > may be missing in chroots. Within vserver-chroots, /proc-parsing > can make attacks possible when a /proc directory with malicious > entries will be generated. > > Syscalls are *much* more agreeably for userspace-tools. my opinion too, and with the syscall switch, the syscalls/functions are cheap, so I see no reason for a procfs set, but we will use proc to display a human readable/script parseable? version of relevant values ... > > In the kernel, we only spit the various commands available and > > their version and userland tools can parse that. We keep the > > bload out of the kernel. > > Implementing the parsing of 'set' commands would be much more > bloat IMO... best, Herbert _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/mailman/listinfo/vserver
