Re: [GIT PULL] vfs pidfd

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 02:14, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Move pidfds from the anonymous inode infrastructure to a tiny
>   pseudo filesystem. This will unblock further work that we weren't able
>   to do simply because of the very justified limitations of anonymous
>   inodes. Moving pidfds to a tiny pseudo filesystem allows for statx on
>   pidfds to become useful for the first time. They can now be compared
>   by inode number which are unique for the system lifetime.

So I obviously pulled this already, but I did have one question - we
don't make nsfs conditional, and I'm not convinced we should make
pidfs conditional either.

I think (and *hope*) all the semantic annoyances got sorted out, and I
don't think there are any realistic size advantages to not enabling

Is there some fundamental reason for that config entry to exist?


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux