ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> An fs actually seems overkill for two write-only files for
>> process-related information.  Would these actually be candidates
>> for new /proc files?
>>
>>        /proc/grantcred - replaces /dev/caphash, for privileged
>>                tasks to tell the kernel about new setuid
>>                capabilities
>>        /proc/self/usecred - replaces /dev/capuse for unprivileged
>>                tasks to make use of a setuid capability
>
> An fs is fine.
>
> To relate this to Plan 9, where it all began, might be useful. There's
> no equivalent in Plan 9 to Linux/Unix devices of the major/minor
> number etc. variety. In-kernel drivers and out-of-kernel servers both
> end up providing the services (i.e. file name spaces) that we see in a
> Linux file system. So the Plan 9 driver for the capability device
> really does match closely in function and interface to a Linux
> kernel-based file system.
>
> Hence, making devcap a file system is entirely appropriate, because it
> best fits the way it works in Plan 9: a kernel driver that provides
> two files.
>
> It's pretty easy to write a Linux VFS anyway, so it makes sense from
> that point of view.
>
> Eric, that was a great suggestion.

A fs provides user space policy control of naming.  I.e. where the two files go.
That can also be a very big deal.  Especially when files are writable.

You have no idea how much I am frustrated by sysfs right now, because
it does not provide userspace policy control and instead mandates a
sometimes inappropriate naming convention.

Eric


--
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/