On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > An fs actually seems overkill for two write-only files for > process-related information. Would these actually be candidates > for new /proc files? > > /proc/grantcred - replaces /dev/caphash, for privileged > tasks to tell the kernel about new setuid > capabilities > /proc/self/usecred - replaces /dev/capuse for unprivileged > tasks to make use of a setuid capability An fs is fine. To relate this to Plan 9, where it all began, might be useful. There's no equivalent in Plan 9 to Linux/Unix devices of the major/minor number etc. variety. In-kernel drivers and out-of-kernel servers both end up providing the services (i.e. file name spaces) that we see in a Linux file system. So the Plan 9 driver for the capability device really does match closely in function and interface to a Linux kernel-based file system. Hence, making devcap a file system is entirely appropriate, because it best fits the way it works in Plan 9: a kernel driver that provides two files. It's pretty easy to write a Linux VFS anyway, so it makes sense from that point of view. Eric, that was a great suggestion. ron -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
