linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: introduce /proc/stat2 file

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: <b40690db-273f-ff67-01bf-de0111deb499@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:59:03 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/proc: introduce /proc/stat2 file

On 10/29/2018 04:38 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> BTW, since you are making stat2 compatible with stat, will that be
>> easier from the user API perspective if we use a sysctl parameter to
>> turn on and off IRQs reporting for /proc/stat, for example?
>
> For one /proc/stat is also common for debugging envs (ie: performance)
> and I fear that if a tunnable modifies the behavior of the output, we
> it might never be usable again (at least not without having users also
> now consider the systctl parameter). Making it dynamic I think is not
> worth it.
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr

This is just a matter if it is easier for users to modify their code to
use /proc/stat2 or turning on a sysctl parameter. Again, this will
certainly depend on the circumstances.

Cheers,
Longman