[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a034919f-d4ca-b8f2-b80b-5de3d4606b97@opersys.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:15:18 -0700
From: Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
atish patra <atishp04@...il.com>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Manoj Rao <linux@...ojrajarao.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] Provide in-kernel headers for making it easy to
extend the kernel
Hi Geert,
On 3/11/19 4:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
[ snip ]
> OK.
>
> Now about the actual solution: what is your opinion on embedding e.g.
> a squashfs image in the kernel instead, which would be a more generic
> solution, not adding more ABI to /proc?
I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of squashfs to have an
educated opinion, but I hear that it's got its quirks (need for
user-space tools, etc.) and possibly security issues. Also, I wonder
whether it's a generalized solution that still kicks the ABI can down
the road -- ultimately the kernel would still have a path/format/foo for
making kheaders available in that squashfs image and that convention
would become ABI. The only "benefit" being that said ABI wouldn't appear
under /proc, and, tbh, I'm not sure that that's actually a benefit or is
even idiomatic since kconfig.gz is already under /proc. To an extent,
the precedent set by kconfig favors kheaders to also be available in the
same location using a similar mechanism ... i.e. bonus points for
consistency.
But that's my hand-wavy gut-reaction response to your question. I'm sure
others on this thread have far more informed opinions about the
specifics than I could have. My priority was to clarify the basis for
the need being addressed.
Cheers,
--
Karim Yaghmour
CEO - Opersys inc. / www.opersys.com
http://twitter.com/karimyaghmour
Powered by blists - more mailing lists