On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:55:52PM -0400, David Higgs wrote: > On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * David Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-15 01:59]: > >> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > * Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-14 11:29]: > >> >> Would it be possible to walk along the live table, without copying the > >> >> table, or would the continuous stream of route inserts and deletes lead > >> >> to a corrupted view and/or access to the wrong parts of the system's > >> >> memory (which must to be prevented), or would this be such a > >> >> performance hit that this is unfeasible? > >> > > >> > userland can walk a kernel table since when exactly? > >> > (leave dirty /dev/mem style hacks aside) > >> > >> If the kernel table is kept in an ordered state, userland could > >> provide a "starting value" or key. The kernel can then return the > >> requested chunk (up to the size requested) starting at the "next" > >> table item that comes after the key. > > > > wow. you completely miss the point. > > userland cannot poke in kernel memory. > > (footnote: ok, it can, but assuming it can't is better) > > I knew that, but I explained myself poorly. I was thinking something > along the lines of making a different route sysctl (other than > NET_RT_DUMP) that can copy out smaller portions of the routing table > at a time. Userland programs could then iterate their way through the > routing table. > > Depending on the structures being copied out, this might be completely > unworkable. On top of that, you'd at best just push back the limits > on available real memory. Best to wait for a restartable route > sysctl. > > Apologies for the noise and my out-loud musings. >
Yes that's more or less what needs to be done. I'm willing to look at diffs and help working out the evil guts of this. -- :wq Claudio
