linux-kernel - Re: Where to put adapters, /proc is cool

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: <20080219115550.23b7e481.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:55:50 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Karl Dahlke <eklhad@...cast.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Where to put adapters, /proc is cool

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:39:45 -0500 Karl Dahlke wrote:

> > So without knowing what an adapter is in this context /proc
> > seems to be a bad choice.
> 
> The best explanation might be an example.
> I use my Jupiter speecha dapter all day, every day.
> It basically sends text to a speech synthesizer.
> It also has some virtual files.
> /proc/adapters/jupiter/synth can be used by a process
> to send text directly to the synthesizer.
> 
> echo hello world >/proc/adapters/jupiter/synth
> 
> And I hear hello world.

Like Jan said (ooooh, please use reply-to-all), the word "adapters"
is just too generic.  We have lots of other kinds of "adapters".

> I don't use this virtual file often, but sometimes it's nice.
> A background process on another vt can wake me up when it's done.
> And this is just one example.
> Other virtual files load firmware and dictionaries into the dectalk synth, and so on.
> Other people use virtual files in their adapters as well.
> Really, /proc is the only place for these virtual files that interact
> directly with the kernel and/or its modules;
> I just wanted a fixed place under /proc for adapters to live,
> like sys ttys scsi net, and so on.
> 
> >/proc is for processes (and was in the past used for all sort of crap).
> 
> I gather from this that you don't like the way people
> are using /proc for user/kernel communication.
> I suppose it's a matter of taste,
> but I think it is one of the very coolest things about linux, period.
> I don't have to create 27 new ioctl calls, and have them approved by everyone,
> and make sure they don't collide with 363 other ioctl calls, every time I want
> some new communication with the kernel or its drivers.
> I can read and write files under /proc.
> I'm sorry, but I think it's cool.
> 
> Cool or not, it seems to be here to stay,
> and I humbly suggest a standard location for adapters and their virtual files.
> /proc/adapters

So some driver(s) already uses /proc/adapters?  That's too bad.

It really doesn't belong in /proc, but even if it did, would
/proc/speech make any sense?  or /proc/synthesizer?


---
~Randy
--
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/