linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] console: add /proc/consoles

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]

Date:	Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:39:44 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com,
	"[cleanups]"@suse.de, "Dr. Werner Fink" <werner@...e.de>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] console: add /proc/consoles

On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 05:25:32PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 05:22 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 05:16:11PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2010 05:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 04:35:09PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>>> It allows users to see what consoles are currently known to the system
> >>>> and with what flags.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is based on Werner's patch, the part about traversing fds was
> >>>> removed, the code was moved to kernel/printk.c, where consoles are
> >>>> handled and it makes more sense to me.
> >>>
> >>> Why kernel/printk.c?  I don't think that makes sense, it's just a random
> >>> proc file, so why not put it into something like fs/proc/ instead?
> >>>
> >>> Does it rely on any functions in the printk.c file?
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. I will move it to fs/proc/ if that's preferred. I checked
> >> how VM proc stuff is handled and it was in in mm/, so I put this into
> >> kernel/...
> >>
> >> (Then it will depend on the console cleanup series which I sent few
> >> minutes ago...)
> > 
> > That's fine, I can take those through my tree as well, as it makes sense
> > to do so.
> 
> Actually where this code should be in fs/proc/? Most of the /proc/* is
> handled elsewhere (fs/ mm/ kernel/). The rest is handled in specialized
> fs/proc/FILE.c.

What's wrong with putting it into fs/proc/proc_tty.c?  That seems like
the most logical thing to me...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/