Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc

[john slee]

On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 03:14:32AM -0500, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> No, not a union mount. We didn't have that last time I looked,

i was under the impression al viro had them planned for 2.5...
hopefully i'm right as i find them rather useful at times under other
systems (openbsd)

> and I have some doubts that it would work all that well. Even

why not?  the two namespaces should not clash... and i really hope that
there aren't any tools out there referencing proc via inode num.  what
problems do you see?

> if it does work, it doesn't provide drop-in kernel compatibility
> and doesn't help encourage transition.

it doesn't exactly discourage transition either, and i don't see how
changing proc to hide/not hide stuff encourages it.  at some point it
has to be a distribution issue, regardless of the transitioning scheme.

if a union could be made to work (and as above i'd like to know why it
couldn't, if only for my own education :-) it means you don't have to go
removing stuff later on.

> It would be reasonable to have a proc filesystem that could
> hide or disable half of the content -- either process files
> or the misc junk.
> 
> Let's have a filesystem mounted as type "proc" hide everything
> but the process directories by default. You can still read
> /proc/cpuinfo, but you can't see it when you do "ls /proc".
> Let's have  a filesystem mounted as type "kern" disable the
> process directories by default.

imho this violates the principle of least-surprise, although i suppose
if you're mounting the fs you're probably expecting it so its probably
ok.

curious,

j.

-- 
R N G G   "Well, there it goes again... And we just sit 
 I G G G   here without opposable thumbs." -- gary larson