Date: Tue, 23 May 95 14:34:16 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: charnier@lirmm.fr (Philippe Charnier) Cc: adhir@iagi.net, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: sysctl(3) in kernel modules. Message-ID: <9505232034.AA26319@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199505230716.JAA02226@lirmm.lirmm.fr> from "Philippe Charnier" at May 23, 95 09:16:01 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The modload program should receive the string as an option, and write > it to the module by filling an area in the data segment of the kernel > module. > > By the way, I really don't know how to do such a thing. Neither do I, and I wrote the original modload code. Seriously, that's not the way to do it. Either the server code needs to access the information from within the kernel itself, or it needs to export an interface (or usurp an existing interface) to blow the data across the user/kernel boundry after the load has completed. Typically, the load process does not involve the link, and only understands a.out format sufficiently to get the single entrypoint (usually the init routine) and tell the kernel about it for internal list maintenance, or for manual maintenance (in the case of generic modules). My personal opinion is that there should be a kernel interface to the sysctl registry both for accessing contents from kernel modules and for registering management objects for control by sysctl. If done, the result would be that the module could either access the data itself or export a management point so that a user program could inform it via sysctl. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9505232034.AA26319>