linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH] Add /proc/mempool to display mempool usage

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: <20081201120210.1ed16bd5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:02:10 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, greg@...ah.com, adobriyan@...il.com,
	remi.colinet@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] Add /proc/mempool to display mempool usage

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:13:31 -0600
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 10:12 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:49:07 -0800 Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:42:07AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 06:44:49PM +0100, Remi Colinet wrote:
> > > > > This patch add a new /proc/mempool file in order to display mempool usage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The feature can be disabled with CONFIG_PROC_MEMPOOL=N during kernel
> > > > > configuration.
> > > > 
> > > > We're NOT adding config option per proc file.
> > > > 
> > > > And can we, please, freeze /proc for not per-process stuff and open debugfs
> > > > for random stuff, please?
> > > 
> > > debugfs has been open for random stuff since the day it was added to the
> > > tree :)
> > > 
> > > Feel free to put this kind of thing there instead of proc.
> > 
> > Do distros ship with debugfs enabled?
> > The problem with using debugfs is that it is very optional IMO.
> 
> The problem with debugfs is that it claims to not be an ABI but it is
> lying. Distributions ship tools that depend on portions of debugfs. And
> they also ship debugfs in their kernel. So it is effectively the same
> as /proc, except with the 1.0-era everything-goes attitude rather than
> the 2.6-era we-should-really-think-about-this one.
> 
> Pushing stuff from procfs to debugfs is thus just setting us up for pain
> down the road. Don't do it. In five years, we'll discover we can't turn
> debugfs off or even clean it up because too much relies on it.
> 
> If you think that debugfs is NOT an ABI, then I'm sure you'll be happy
> to ack my patch entitled 'gratuitously break usbmon to remind folks that
> debugfs is not an ABI'.

^^ yup.
--
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/