On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 6:32 AM Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 4/16/19 9:04 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > 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. > > 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? In practice we've been more lenient with changes to /sys over time, so I think this might be a reasonable compromise. I still think that a filesystem view is the cleanest way to do this, but I won't push back from this going in. It does solve a real problem, and if we want a different format later we can revisit it then. -Olof
