On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 15:56 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > > I hate the syscall. It's a very un-Linux-y way of doing things. There, > > Not really the syscall, but the writing to the file from the kernel. > Any time I see set_fs(KERNEL_DS) i get flashbacks to getting yelled at > in the 90s :) Heh. You security whackos are always getting yelled at for _something_ anyway. > > I said it. Here's an alternative. It still uses the syscall to > > initiate things, but it uses debugfs to transport the data instead. > > This is just a concept demonstration. It doesn't actually work, and I > > wouldn't be using debugfs in practice. > > It's neat how few lines this took, but I would prefer using a tiny > custom fs rather than use debugfs for dump and configfs for restore. Yeah, doing a new FS would certainly be a ton more code. But, I think the most important part ends up being how complicated it ends up being in practice. It may turn out that refactoring some existing debug/configfs code might be enough to get us there without too much new code *just* for us. > If you like I can take a shot at whipping up the new mini-fs, though > I think you're having fun :) I need to look into what configfs can give me, next. I'll keep playing. :) I really just wanted to know what Oren and Andrey thought. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers