Re: [RFC] [PATCH] sysctl for the latecomers

From: Amit Gud
Date: Tue Aug 01 2006 - 14:57:43 EST

Chase Venters wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Chase Venters wrote:
Btw, wanted to add some comments on the specific approach:

1. A ring hard-coded to 32 elements is IMO unuseable. While it may not be a real limit for what use case you have in mind, if it's in the kernel sooner or later someone else is going to use it and get bitten. Imagine if they wrote in 33 entries, and the first one was some critical security setting that ended up getting silently ignored...

2. On the other hand, allowing it to grow unbounded is equally unacceptable without a mechanism to list and clear the current "pending" sysctl values. Unfortunately, at this point, you're starting to violate "KISS".

You figured it right, theres no "correct" number of elements that I could adhere to.

Are the modules you refer to inserted during init at all? Because it seems like it would be a lot more appropriate to just move sysctl until after loading the modules, or perhaps running it again once they are loaded.

I have a case where sunrpc module gets inserted and sunrpc.tcp_slot_table_entries parameter is to be set _before_ nfs module is inserted. I agree that for this particular case user-space works (either udev rule, or modprobe.conf or sysctl after modprobe in initscripts), but am on a lookout for a more generic way for handling such cases - be it user-space or otherwise.

May the source be with you.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at