linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending kernel easier

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: <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