[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190416142116.GA183794@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:21:16 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.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 Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:45:09AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:32:37 -0400
> Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> 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?
>
> BTW, the name "tarballs" was kind of a joke. Probably should come up
> with a better name. Although, I'm fine with tarballsfs ;-)
:-)
In theory, the headers could also be hosted in tracefs since the scope of the
patch right now is to help tracing tools (BCC / eBPF). Although /sys/kernel
might be better in case the scope is expanded to other things.
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists