Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: Darren Reed <email@example.com>
From: Johan Danielsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/05/2000 15:01:14
Darren Reed <email@example.com> writes:
> - support min/default/max/modulus(?) parameters for each sysctl entry.
> This would let you enforce 0/1 on "boolean" sysctl entries such as
> ip_forwarding, etc. I'm thinking about modulus so that you can
> enforce things like u-sec timers to be in lots of 1000, etc. For
> string types that are rw, this would be limited to default. Some
> other properties for nodes I'm thinking of are "ownership" (based
> on user/group) and permissions (rwxrwxrwx) so you can setup read
> only, read-write and write only sysctl nodes.
I think this should be done by having a function that is called when
someone is trying to set a value. That way you can enforce arbitrary
restrictions on values.
> - given it would be dynamic in nature, providing a compatible interface
> with sysctl as it is now would require walking the entire tree.
What do you mean? Isn't it enough to map 1.2.3 to
string1.string2.string3 for the current MIB?
> - what needs to be done, if anything, to make it into a "MIB" that
> is more suited to SNMP means ?
I can't think of anything that has to be dealt with in the kernel
(other that possibly adding more values).
> ...any other ideas ?
Not at this time, but I might convince myself to help (modulo