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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:41 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. thanks, - Joel > thanks, > > greg k-h
