> On Apr 6, 2023, at 3:56 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <h...@selasky.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/5/23 21:44, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> On 4/5/23 20:23, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>> What if we remove the CTLFLAG_VNET check from the code you posted above?
>>> I don't see anything going wrong, rather going right 😄
>>>
>>> CTLFLAG_VNET will not mask away CTLFLAG_TUN.
>> Hi Gleb,
>> It's possible to bypass that check, but some work needs to be done first.
>> Then all jails created, will also start from those sysctl tunable values.
>> The problem is, where does the VNET base pointer come from?
>> Especially those static sysctl's. You would need to make some design there I
>> guess and look at the SYSINIT() order. When are SYSINIT's filled with
>> tunable data's. And when is the default VNET created.
>> Because the data pointer passed to the register sysctl function is simply an
>> offset pointer into a malloc'ed structure.
>> --HPS
>
> Hi Zhenlei,
>
> Feel free to work on this, and add me as a reviewer and complete phase two of:
>
>> commit 3da1cf1e88f8448bb10c5f778ab56ff65c7a6938
>> Author: Hans Petter Selasky <hsela...@freebsd.org>
>> Date: Fri Jun 27 16:33:43 2014 +0000
>> Extend the meaning of the CTLFLAG_TUN flag to automatically check if
>> there is an environment variable which shall initialize the SYSCTL
>> during early boot. This works for all SYSCTL types both statically and
>> dynamically created ones, except for the SYSCTL NODE type and SYSCTLs
>> which belong to VNETs. A new flag, CTLFLAG_NOFETCH, has been added to
>
I'd like to do some refactoring firstly, so that I can focus on CTLFLAG_VNET ;)
> --HPS
Best regards,
Zhenlei
