Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:34:14 +0100 (CET) | From | Richard Guenther <> | Subject | Re: How to mount /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc ? |
| |
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Actually, the right thing to do would be to drop the ugly tricks with > writing to .../register and use normal create()/write()/close() to add > entries. Commit-on-close and there you go. unlink() to remove these > suckers, chmod g-r to disable. > > IOW, instead of > echo ':foo:.......' >register echo ':.....' > /etc/binfmt_misc/foo > echo '-1' > foo rm /etc/binfmt_misc/foo > echo '0' > foo chmod g-r /etc/binfmt_misc/foo > echo '1' > foo chmod g+r /etc/binfmt_misc/foo > echo '-1' > status rm /etc/binfmt_misc/* > echo '0' > status chmod -x /etc/binfmt_misc > echo '1' > status chmod +x /etc/binfmt_misc > cat status cat /etc/binfmt_misc/* > > Normal behaviour instead of black magic, no checks for duplicate entries, > special names, yodda, yodda - everything would work as one expects from > normal directory. When you want to create a file you create it, not write > an incantation into a magic file. And when you want to remove it, the > last thing you would normally think of is writing "-1" into the victim. > Yes, I know that procfs doesn't allow that. Mark the correct conclusion: > (A) procfs is not suitable for the task > (B) we should invent a kludgy way to create files, etc. on > procfs without using normal create() and reimplement the > sanity checks > (C) same as (B), but ignore sanity > Your choice being...?
My choice would have been (A) if there was a nice way to create small filesystems at the time I did binfmt_misc. This is also the reason I dont like your rewrite - it does the same sucky kludges, but with an own filesystem that could do a lot better - _and_ it breaks backward compatibility wrt mounting. Doh - I thought you could do better.
> And yes, I'm quite aware of the fact that we are stuck with the current > kludgy API - compatibility issues and all such. Pity, that... > > Al, very unimpressed both with design and implementation of that kludge...
The first version was w/o /proc support but used sysctl and a userspace program. But well, people wantet /proc and /proc was sexy, everything was done using /proc, so I did use it, too. Bad decision - I should have started rewriting the fs layer at that time...
Richard.
-- Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@student.uni-tuebingen.de> WWW: http://www.anatom.uni-tuebingen.de/~richi/ The GLAME Project: http://www.glame.de/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |