Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 2 Jan 1999 09:17:10 -0600 (CST) | From | Oliver Xymoron <> | Subject | Re: bogous binfmt_misc patch in 2.2.0-pre1 |
| |
On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> However, I didn't actually apply the makefile or config patches. I've > grown tired of the problems with CONFIG_PROC_FS showing up everywhere > (it's been implicated in just about 90% of all CONFIG_XXXX problems I've > heard of lately), and I want something better. > > That "something better" would be to just make everybody act as if > CONFIG_PROC_FS is always there, but for people who really don't want to > have the code you just have the register/unregister/whatever functions be > empty inline functions that always return success (or failure, whatever).
Are there alternatives to the current proc approach? For instance, it might be feasable to replace procfs with a usermode filesystem driver that talks to the kernel via a single binary interface of some sort.
I think this would have several advantages:
- a large amount of complexity removed from the kernel - removes formatting policy to user space (this is the big win) - fewer kernel races if the binary interface is a single syscall - applications that wanted high-speed access would have binary access available - if you make this a priviledged call, you force the permission policy into the userspace tool as well - the user app could be runtime configurable
Disadvantages:
- current userfs systems may be a little ungainly (but I wouldn't know) - requires a consistent interface (perhaps like sysctl?) - version skew issues between user tool and kernel - some fatal flaw I haven't thought of yet
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |