From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750932AbWDSRjY (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:39:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750929AbWDSRjY (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:39:24 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:8586 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750903AbWDSRjX (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:39:23 -0400 To: Dave Hansen Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Kirill Korotaev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, sam@vilain.net, xemul@sw.ru, James Morris Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] utsname namespaces: sysctl hack References: <20060407095132.455784000@sergelap> <20060407183600.E40C119B902@sergelap.hallyn.com> <4446547B.4080206@sw.ru> <20060419152129.GA14756@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <1145463814.31812.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145467159.31812.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:37:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1145467159.31812.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Dave Hansen's message of "Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:19:18 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dave Hansen writes: > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:52 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Dave Hansen writes: >> >> > Besides ipc and utsnames, can anybody think of some other things in >> > sysctl that we really need to virtualize? >> >> All of the networking entries. > ... >> Only in that you attacked the wrong piece of the puzzle. >> The strategy table entries simply need to die, or be rewritten >> to use the appropriate proc entries. > > If we are limited to ipc, utsname, and network, I'd be worried trying to > justify _too_ much infrastructure. The network namespaces are not going > to be solved any time soon. Why not have something like this which is a > quite simple, understandable, minor hack? Because it doesn't affect what happens in /proc/sys ! Strategy routines only affect sys_sysctl. As strategy routines I have no real problems with them. I haven't looked terribly closely yet. >> The proc entries are the real interface, and the two pieces >> don't share an implementation unfortunately. > > You're saying that the proc interface doesn't use the ->strategy entry? > That isn't what I remember, but I could be completely wrong. Exactly. I have a patch I will be sending out shortly that make sys_sysctl a compile time option (so we can seriously start killing it) and it compiles out the strategy routines and /proc/sys still works :) Eric