On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:45:09AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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 ;-) :-) In theory, the headers could also be hosted in tracefs since the scope of the patch right now is to help tracing tools (BCC / eBPF). Although /sys/kernel might be better in case the scope is expanded to other things. thanks, - Joel
