On 26 Jun 2012, at 15:42, m...@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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
