Re: sysctl filesystem ?

On 26 Jun 2012, at 15:42, mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote:

> While I understand the problems you allude to, the sysctl(8) binary
> can protect itself from them.  IMO the biggest problem with sysctls
> not being files is that it makes no sense from the core UNIX
> philosophy that everything is a file.  Sockets and pipes and character
> devices and even unseekable things like stdout are files; why aren't
> these other objects that allow read, write, and have their own
> namespace?

I think I agree with what you're saying, subject to one modification: =
rather than saying "files", say "file descriptors", which are not quite =
the same but are, I think, what you mean. This doesn't mean you end up =
with a special file system mounted on /foo -- we don't do that for =
sockets or pipes --- but rather, we end up with using a similar =
object-oriented interface. And hence, BTW, our recent experimental =
addition of process descriptors to the API in support of Capsicum. =
However, I wonder how well that applies to sysctls, which unlike =
pipes/sockets, don't have an event model, etc...

Robert=
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"