Re: [PATCH 4/4] net: Implement the per network namespace sysctl infrastructure

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:

>
> Hey Eric,
>
> the patches look nice.
>
> The hand-forcing of the passed-in net_ns into a copy of current->nsproxy
> does make it seem like nsproxy may not be the best choice of what to
> pass in.  Doesn't only net_sysctl_root->lookup() look at the argument?

Yes.  Although I call it from __register_sysctl_paths.

> But I assume you don't want to be more general than sending in a
> nsproxy so as to dissuade abuse of this interface for needlessly complex
> sysctl interfaces?

A bit of that.  I would love to pass in a task_struct so you can use
anything from a task.  The trouble is I don't have any task_structs or
nsproxys with the proper value at the point where I am first setting
this up.  Further I have to have the full sysctl lookup working or I
could not call sysctl_check.

> (Well I expect that'll become clear once the the patches using this
> come out.)
>
> Are you planning to use this infrastructure for the uts and ipc
> sysctls as well?

Yes.  Where it comes in especially useful, is I can move /proc/sys
to /proc/sys/<tgid>/task/<pid>/sys.  And get a particular processes
view of sysctl.  

We also get a little more reuse of common functions.

Otherwise Pavel does have a point that using this for uts and ipc
is not a savings lines of code wise.

After having seen Pavel changes I am asking myself if there is a sane
way to remove the ctl_name argument from the ctl_path.

Anyway where I am with the nsproxy question was that I don't
see anything easily better.  What I have works and gets the job
done, and doesn't have any module unload races or holes where a sloppy
programmer can mess up the sysctl tree.  We needed a solution.
Trying any harder to find something better would take ages.  So
I figured this implementation was good enough.

Eric