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. thanks, greg k-h
