From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 23 16:19: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from gateway.posi.net (c1096725-a.smateo1.sfba.home.com [24.20.139.104]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C37B37B5C3; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:18:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kbyanc@posi.net) Received: from localhost (kbyanc@localhost) by gateway.posi.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA40238; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:23:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kbyanc@posi.net) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:23:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Yancey To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, wollman@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern.ipc.maxsockbuf vs reality? In-Reply-To: <20000723153345.P13979@fw.wintelcom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Also, if sb_max is to remain a read/write sysctl we'll need to cap > it so that kern.ipc.maxsockbuf is always true and we don't allow > sysadmins to shoot thier feet by scaling it too high or low, the > only problem is that I can't for the life of me figure out the > magic to keep sb_max (kern.ipc.maxsockbuf) as a ulong (which it > should be, instead of an int) as well as provide a filtering > function. > You'de have to use SYSCTL_PROC with a fmt of "LU". Just let the handler do the sanity checking on sysctl writes. Kelly -- Kelly Yancey - kbyanc@posi.net - Belmont, CA System Administrator, eGroups.com http://www.egroups.com/ Maintainer, BSD Driver Database http://www.posi.net/freebsd/drivers/ Coordinator, Team FreeBSD http://www.posi.net/freebsd/Team-FreeBSD/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message