Re: [RFC][PATCH 1 of 4] Configfs is really sysfs

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com>]

On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:25, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:13, Joel Becker wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in
> > > sysfs or to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs
> > > namespace. Why should the kernel not be able to add objects to a
> > > directory a user created? It should be up to the module author to
> > > decide these things.
> >
> > 	This is precisely why configfs is separate from sysfs.  If both
> > user and kernel can create objects, the lifetime of the object and its
> > filesystem representation is very complex.  Sysfs already has problems
> > with people getting this wrong.  configfs does not.
>
> Could you please give a specific case?

More to the point: what makes you think that this apparent ruggedness will
diminish after being re-integrated with sysfs?  If you wish, you can avoid
any dangers by not using sysfs's vfs bypass api.  It should be up to the
subsystem author.

Regards,

Daniel