Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:57:05 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@webgiro.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SysctlFS Message-ID: <7167.963403025@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:35:47 %2B0200." <Pine.BSF.4.20.0007121328020.49102-100000@mx.webgiro.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.20.0007121328020.49102-100000@mx.webgiro.com>, Andrz ej Bialecki writes: >I've been tweaking the sysctls here and there for some time now, and I'd >like to see what is the current opinion on implementing sysctl tree as a >filesystem. I think it would be the entirely wrong thing to do as it would put the burden of rendering information inside the kernel. >Also, filesystem model allows for >much more fine-grained access control. No, in fact it would not, you can do more flexible things in C code than with struct stat. Also, if it forces us to mount /sysctl in every jail(8) expect people to yell at you for that as well. Plan9 had a nice idea, but either you take it all the way, or you don't go down that road. Going halfway doesn't make sense. Forget it... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7167.963403025>