Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:49:39 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending kernel easier |
| |
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.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |