linux-kernel - Re: tmpfs disabled in .config but in /proc/filesystems

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710052136460.17084@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Oct 2007 21:49:45 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <lg@...x.de>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tmpfs disabled in .config but in /proc/filesystems

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > Am I running crazy here (some 2.6.23-rc6-ish)?
> > > 
> > > $ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep TMPFS
> > > # CONFIG_TMPFS is not set
> > > $ grep tmpfs /proc/filesystems
> > > nodev   tmpfs
> > 
> > tmpfs (mm/shmem.c) is used by the kernel to support shared memory
> > of various kinds even when CONFIG_TMPFS is not set.  But only when
> > CONFIG_TMPFS=y can users mount a tmpfs as a fully capable filesystem.
> > Confusing, yes: sorry for putting the fear of craziness upon you.
> 
> Oops, sorry, now I remember reading about this... As a matter of fact, the 
> presence in /proc/filesystem - was it a deliberate decision, or 
> technically preferrable or a mistake?

d) None of the above!

I've never really thought about it, but I think it's simply a natural
side-effect of the register_filesystem and vfs_kern_mount it has to
do in order to get the services it needs from the VFS.

If I were to look back in history, I expect I'd find that it used
to display as "shmfs" or "shmemfs" rather than "tmpfs", and that
we adjusted the naming later on.   You might prefer that we hadn't,
or that we registered under both names if CONFIG_TMPFS (maybe we did
do it like that at one stage, I vaguely remember but haven't checked).

> Wouldn't it be more logical to 
> completely hide it from the user then?

Sorry, I find it hard to get excited about!
I'm inclined not to mess around with it now.
With apologies to your sanity ;)

Hugh
-
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/