On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 09:32:37 -0400 Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> 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. > > This makes sense. And if it alleviates concerns regarding extending > /proc ABIs then might as well switch to this. > > Olof, what do you think of this? BTW, the name "tarballs" was kind of a joke. Probably should come up with a better name. Although, I'm fine with tarballsfs ;-) -- Steve
