On 2/13/24 23:38, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 02:35:29PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:29 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:01:19PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: >> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 2:40 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 01:38:59PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: >> > > > > Introduce CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING which provides definitions to easily >> > > > > instrument memory allocators. It registers an "alloc_tags" codetag type >> > > > > with /proc/allocinfo interface to output allocation tag information when >> > > > >> > > > Please don't add anything new to the top-level /proc directory. This >> > > > should likely live in /sys. >> > > >> > > Ack. I'll find a more appropriate place for it then. >> > > It just seemed like such generic information which would belong next >> > > to meminfo/zoneinfo and such... >> > >> > Save yourself a cycle of "rework the whole fs interface only to have >> > someone else tell you no" and put it in debugfs, not sysfs. Wrangling >> > with debugfs is easier than all the macro-happy sysfs stuff; you don't >> > have to integrate with the "device" model; and there is no 'one value >> > per file' rule. >> >> Thanks for the input. This file used to be in debugfs but reviewers >> felt it belonged in /proc if it's to be used in production >> environments. Some distros (like Android) disable debugfs in >> production. > > FWIW, I agree debugfs is not right. If others feel it's right in /proc, > I certainly won't NAK -- it's just been that we've traditionally been > trying to avoid continuing to pollute the top-level /proc and instead > associate new things with something in /sys. Sysfs is really a "one value per file" thing though. /proc might be ok for a single overview file.
