[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New procfs implementation

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: New procfs implementation
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 01:06:32 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14


Just some general comments.

>     { "anonymous-owner", 'a', "USER", 0,
>       "Make USER the owner of files related to processes without one.  "
>       "Be aware that USER will be granted access to the environment and "
>       "other sensitive information about the processes in question.  "
>       "(default: use uid 0)" },

Which use do you envision?

> procfs.c

is caching data really useful for anything but directories?
I'm afraid of all the various re-reading patterns that tools may have.

procfs.c: About 42, 2 can be a better FIXME guess for now, since that's
the root inode in ext2fs.

procfs_make_ino: this is not handling collisions. This can pose problems
with e.g. tar-ing /proc with hardlink management (yes, I sometimes do
such thing). I'm afraid it might be better to just assign known major
numbers to the various content providers (yes, that's not elegant), let
them handle minor numbers, and combine both. That would help to fill

netfs_*: shouldn't we check the node type?

rootdir.c: you have #define KERNEL_PID 2 while it was made a translator
parameter in main.c, is it on purpose?  If so, it's probably worth


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]