Re: route/max_size sysctl in ipv4

[Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com>]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Ani Sinha <ani@arista.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps. What I am truly confused about is :
>
> - We are keeping a sysctl interface that does absolutely nothing in
> the kernel and is completely useless in case some userland
> scripts/tools are rendered broken from it's removal.

I am all for getting rid of it, sane script should always check
the sysctl existence first. I think we did remove some sysctl's
from kernel before.

>
> - surprisingly, we contradict ourselves when we let scripts break when
> running from a child namespace because the  same sysctl is no longer
> available!
>

I am not sure how exactly your script is broken, but it should
test the existence of any /proc file before reading it, even when
you don't use netns, because this could be a new sysctl introduced
recently (probably not the case for ip_rt_max_size, but you get my point).