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: <f8b15e31-1aab-ab2c-d44d-47325faab67d@opersys.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:32:37 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com> To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, 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>, 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 4/16/19 9:04 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > 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. This makes sense. And if it alleviates concerns regarding extending /proc ABIs then might as well switch to this. Olof, what do you think of this? -- Karim Yaghmour CEO - Opersys inc. / www.opersys.com http://twitter.com/karimyaghmour
Powered by blists - more mailing lists