Re: [PATCH] IPVS: Fix sysctl warnings about missing strategy

[Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 06:25:00PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:38:32AM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> > Hi Julian,
> >
> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Simon Horman wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> > As for the commented out entries. They are supposed to be exposed by
> >> > some other means - I believe the thinking was to comply with the don't
> >> > expose stuff in proc any more idea. Where is the best place to expose
> >> > this kind of stuff?
> >> 
> >> 	I assume /proc/sys is still valid place, only sysctl interface
> >> is scheduled for removal.
> >
> > I'm happy to add them there, so long as that is a good place.
> 
> For simple integer values /proc/sys (ala the ascii sysctl interface)
> seems as good as any to me.

Understood.

> The binary interface is problematic because it doesn't get used and
> so we don't show proper discipline with binary integers leading to
> silent ABI changes, and the actual implementation of the handler
> routines get out of sync with the proc side giving us different
> meanings.
> 
> >> So, as long as these entries are not
> >> accessible from sysctl it is safe to run without strategy handler but if
> >> values can be changed then we will need strategy handler to
> >> properly call update_defense_level() as done in proc_do_defense_mode()
> >> as proc_handler. There could be side effects if new mode is not applied.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are getting at there. I did write a stratergy
> > for update_defense_level(), but I didn't post it, as I thought that
> > it would not be needed if CTL_UNNUMBERED is used.
> 
> Strategy routines are never called if CTL_UNNUMBERED is used.  So you
> should be safe just killing the ctl_name field or setting it
> explicitly to CTL_UNNUMBERED.

Thanks Eric, thats more or less what I thought.

-- 
Horms, California Edition