Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:39:36 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: sysfs: tagged directories not merged completely yet |
| |
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:54:24PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Greg KH (greg@kroah.com): > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 01:27:17AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Unless someone will give an example of how having multiple superblocks > > > sharing inodes is a problem in practice for sysfs and call it good > > > for 2.6.28. Certainly it shouldn't be an issue if the network namespace > > > code is compiled out. And it should greatly improve testing of the > > > network namespace to at least have access to sysfs. > > > > But if the network namespace code is in? THen we have problems, right? > > And that's the whole point here. > > > > The fact that you are trying to limit userspace view of in-kernel data > > structures, based on that specific user, is, in my opinion, crazy. > > > > Why not just keep all users from seeing sysfs, and then have a user > > daemon doing something on top of FUSE if you really want to see this > > kind of stuff. > > Well the blocker is really that when you create a new network namespace, > it wants to create a new loopback interface, but > /sys/devices/virtual/net/lo already exists. That's the same issue with > user namespace when the fair scheduler is enabled, which tries to > re-create /sys/kernel/uids/0. > > Otherwise yeah at least for my own uses, containers wouldn't need to > look at /sys at all. > > Heck you wouldn't even need FUSE, just mount -t tmpfs /sys/class/net > and manually link the right devices from /sys/devices/virtual/net.
Great, that sounds like a solution.
So tell me again why we need these huge sysfs reworks? :)
thanks,
greg k-h
| |