From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jul 12 4:57:17 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B39A37BB13 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:57:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07169; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:57:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Andrzej Bialecki Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SysctlFS In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:35:47 +0200." Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:57:05 +0200 Message-ID: <7167.963403025@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , 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