[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending kernel easier

On 4/16/19 9:04 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:49:39PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 08:33:06AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:50:10 -0500
>>> Kees Cook <> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:41 AM Steven Rostedt <> wrote:
>>>>> I agree with this assessment. We shouldn't use config.gz as precedence
>>>>> for this solution. config.gz should have been in debugfs to begin with,
>>>>> but I don't believe debugfs was around when config.gz was introduced.
>>>>> (Don't have time to look into the history of the two).
>>>> I don't agree with this: /proc/config.gz is used by a lot of tools
>>>> that do sanity-check of running systems. This isn't _debugging_...
>>>> it's verifying correct kernel builds. It's a fancy version of checking
>>>> /proc/version.
>>> Then we should perhaps make a new file system call tarballs ;-)
>>> /sys/kernel/tarballs/
>>> and place everything there. That way it removes it from /proc (which is
>>> the worse place for that) and also makes it something other than debug.
>>> That's what I did for tracefs.
>> As horrible as that suggestion is, it does kind of make sense :)
>> We can't put this in debugfs as that's only for debugging and systems
>> should never have that mounted for normal operations (users want to
>> build ebpf programs), and /proc really should be for processes but that
>> horse is long left the barn.
>> But, I'm willing to consider putting this either in a system-fs-like
>> filesystem, or just in sysfs itself, we do have /sys/kernel/ to play
>> around in if the main objection is that we should not be cluttering up
>> /proc with stuff like this.
> I am ok with the suggestion of /sys/kernel for the archive. That also seems
> to fit well with the idea that the headers are kernel related and probably
> belong here more strictly speaking, than /proc.

This makes sense. And if it alleviates concerns regarding extending
/proc ABIs then might as well switch to this.

Olof, what do you think of this?

Karim Yaghmour
CEO - Opersys inc. /

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-16 15:33    [W:0.075 / U:5.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site