From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754855AbcIUAWw (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 20:22:52 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:42022 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753824AbcIUAWv (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 20:22:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Put vdso in ramfs-like filesystem (vdsofs) To: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com> References: <20160825152110.25663-1-dsafonov@virtuozzo.com> <3AD1D5AF-552E-4345-855A-36ECC4B545DE@zytor.com> Cc: Dmitry Safonov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , X86 ML , Oleg Nesterov , Steven Rostedt , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk From: "H. Peter Anvin" Message-ID: <6d16fdfe-582e-fa4a-9d51-49bd07a22945@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:22:34 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The more I'm thinking about this, why don't we simply have these (the various possible vdsos as well as vvar) as actual files in sysfs instead of introducing a new filesystem? I don't believe sysfs actually has to be mounted in order for sysfs files to have an inode. It could also be in procfs, I guess, but sysfs probably makes more sense. I'm thinking something like: /sys/kernel/vdso/{i386,x86_64,x32,vvar} Not only would this let the container people and so on do weird things much easier, but it ought to eliminate a whole slew of special cases. -hpa