Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending kernel easier | From | Karim Yaghmour <> | Date | Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:32:37 -0400 |
| |
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 <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:41 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> 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. / www.opersys.com http://twitter.com/karimyaghmour
| |