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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190416130440.GA7944@localhost> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:04:40 +0000 From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Manoj Rao <linux@...ojrajarao.com>, 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>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com>, 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, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending kernel easier On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:49:39PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 08:33:06AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:50:10 -0500 > > Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:41 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote: > > > > I agree with this assessment. We shouldn't use config.gz as precedence > > > > for this solution. config.gz should have been in debugfs to begin with, > > > > but I don't believe debugfs was around when config.gz was introduced. > > > > (Don't have time to look into the history of the two). > > > > > > I don't agree with this: /proc/config.gz is used by a lot of tools > > > that do sanity-check of running systems. This isn't _debugging_... > > > it's verifying correct kernel builds. It's a fancy version of checking > > > /proc/version. > > > > > > > Then we should perhaps make a new file system call tarballs ;-) > > > > /sys/kernel/tarballs/ > > > > and place everything there. That way it removes it from /proc (which is > > the worse place for that) and also makes it something other than debug. > > That's what I did for tracefs. > > As horrible as that suggestion is, it does kind of make sense :) > > We can't put this in debugfs as that's only for debugging and systems > should never have that mounted for normal operations (users want to > build ebpf programs), and /proc really should be for processes but that > horse is long left the barn. > > But, I'm willing to consider putting this either in a system-fs-like > filesystem, or just in sysfs itself, we do have /sys/kernel/ to play > around in if the main objection is that we should not be cluttering up > /proc with stuff like this. > I am ok with the suggestion of /sys/kernel for the archive. That also seems to fit well with the idea that the headers are kernel related and probably belong here more strictly speaking, than /proc. thanks, - Joel > thanks, > > greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists