Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bpf: add support for persistent maps/progs

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 10/16/2015 07:42 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 10/16/15 10:21 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > Another question:
> > Should multiple mount of the filesystem result in an empty fs (a new
> > instance) or in one were one can see other ebpf-fs entities? I think
> > Daniel wanted to already use the mountpoint as some kind of hierarchy
> > delimiter. I would have used directories for that and multiple mounts
> > would then have resulted in the same content of the filesystem. IMHO
> > this would remove some ambiguity but then the question arises how this
> > is handled in a namespaced environment. Was there some specific reason
> > to do so?
>
> That's an interesting question!
> I think all mounts should be independent.
> I can see tracing using one and networking using another one
> with different hierarchies suitable for their own use cases.
> What's an advantage to have the same content everywhere?
> Feels harder to manage, since different users would need to
> coordinate.

I initially had it as a mount_single() file system, where I was thinking
to have an entry under /sys/fs/bpf/, so all subsystems would work on top
of that mount point, but for the same reasons above I lifted that restriction.

Cheers,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/