Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:35:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@webgiro.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: SysctlFS Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0007121328020.49102-100000@mx.webgiro.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, 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. Most of the work I've done with dynamic sysctls is very similar to what happens with filesystem. Also, filesystem model allows for much more fine-grained access control. I'm opposed to the idea of having something similar like Linux /proc, though, with nice formatting done in the kernel... The objects hooked up to the names should still be retrieved in binary form, as they are exported via SYSCTL_* macros. But filesystem paradigm would allow us to reuse all the concepts for hierarchical name handling, traversal, permissions etc... The sysctlFS nodes would be probably read-only from userland, as I don't see much sense in userland programs renaming or removing them - they would be created, named and removed from kernel-land. But things like traversal and access would be simplified greatly. Any thoughts? Andrzej Bialecki // <abial@webgiro.com> WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // ------------------------------------------------------------------- // ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org -------- // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ---- 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?Pine.BSF.4.20.0007121328020.49102-100000>