linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/17] VFS: Filesystem information and notifications [ver #17]

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: <20200302093850.GA1998325@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:38:50 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] VFS: Filesystem information and notifications [ver
 #17]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 10:09:51AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:36 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > sysfs also has some other disadvantages for this:
> >
> >  (1) There's a potential chicken-and-egg problem in that you have to create a
> >      bunch of files and dirs in sysfs for every created mount and superblock
> >      (possibly excluding special ones like the socket mount) - but this
> >      includes sysfs itself.  This might work - provided you create sysfs
> >      first.
> 
> Sysfs architecture looks something like this (I hope Greg will correct
> me if I'm wrong):
> 
> device driver -> kobj tree <- sysfs tree
> 
> The kobj tree is created by the device driver, and the dentry tree is
> created on demand from the kobj tree.   Lifetime of kobjs is bound to
> both the sysfs objects and the device but not the other way round.
> I.e. device can go away while the sysfs object is still being
> referenced, and sysfs can be freely mounted and unmounted
> independently of device initialization.
> 
> So there's no ordering requirement between sysfs mounts and other
> mounts.   I might be wrong on the details, since mounts are created
> very early in the boot process...
> 
> >
> >  (2) sysfs is memory intensive.  The directory structure has to be backed by
> >      dentries and inodes that linger as long as the referenced object does
> >      (procfs is more efficient in this regard for files that aren't being
> >      accessed)
> 
> See above: I don't think dentries and inodes are pinned, only kobjs
> and their associated cruft.  Which may be too heavy, depending on the
> details of the kobj tree.

That is correct, they should not be pinned, that is what kernfs handles
and why we can handle 30k virtual block devices on a 31bit s390 instance
:)

So you shouldn't have to worry about memory for sysfs.

There are loads of other reasons probably not to use sysfs for this
instead :)

thanks,

greg k-h