Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 24 Dec 2012 23:51:50 +0100
From:      Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>
To:        Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net>
Cc:        freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: conf/174595: /etc/rc.d/sysctl : unknown oid &#39; XXX&#39; [regression]
Message-ID:  <20121224225150.GA81874@stack.nl>
In-Reply-To: <201212242220.qBOMK0um096595@freefall.freebsd.org>
References:  <201212242220.qBOMK0um096595@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:20:00PM +0000, Xin Li wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR conf/174595; it has been noted by GNATS.

> From: Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net>
> To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, olivier@gid0.org
> Cc:  
> Subject: Re: conf/174595: /etc/rc.d/sysctl : unknown oid &#39;XXX&#39; [regression]
> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:17:27 -0800

>  It seems that the old behavior is actually wrong...  How are we
>  benefited by not being told about fatal errors?

I think the old behaviour is correct.

How it used to work was that the first attempt via /etc/rc.d/sysctl
start would ignore nonexistent OIDs while the second attempt via
/etc/rc.d/sysctl lastload (via /etc/rc.d/securelevel) would complain
about them. This way, sysctls added by modules loaded via rc.d would be
harmlessly ignored the first time.

The new code attempts to do this via sysctl -i but appears to have
switched things around. Unknown OIDs should be ignored the first time
and should not be ignored the last time, which is the opposite the code
does.

-- 
Jilles Tjoelker



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121224225150.GA81874>