Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] Provide in-kernel headers to make extending kernel easier

[Steven Rostedt]

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