linux-kernel - Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:25:36 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>
To:	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	"linux kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>, "Joel Becker" <joel.becker@...cle.com>,
	"Satyam Sharma" <ssatyam@....iitk.ac.in>,
	"Felix Fietkau" <nbd@...nwrt.org>,
	"Al Viro" <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
Subject: Is configfs the right solution for configuration based fs?

I was really interested in looking to start a filesystem based
approach for configuration of wireless a while back, an alternative to
nl80211 if you will, but I stopped after I was told about some major
issues with configfs. I forget the issues raised clearly so I'd like
to bring this up for debate to see what really are the issues, what
needs to be fixed so we can *properly* use a fs for configuration of
subsystems. I thought configfs was the solution. We currently use and
abuse debugfs, but it doesn't matter -- we don't expect users to
depend on those files for ABI. It, however, it would be nice to
finally export some of these values into a concise place so userspace
*can* rely on them.

I'm ultimately looking for an option to reduce the size of the kernel
you'd need for wirless configuration, or at least to make easier for
userspace. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I want an alternative to
nl80211 -- I realize we already decided on that and are moving along
in that direction, I'm just wondering once that is done what is the
right place to look at and if we don't have anything what are the
things we need to take into consideration so we *do* use or implement
the *right thing*.

Perhaps a fs is not even the most optimized approach for size anyway
so the benefits may just be helping with the easy design of userspace
applications. Feedback on experiences are welcomed.

PS. I'm hoping those who *really* hate configs can comment

  Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/