From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bpf: add support for persistent maps/progs Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:56:49 +0200 Message-ID: <56213A61.40509@iogearbox.net> References: <1445016105.1251655.412231129.6574D430@webmail.messagingengine.com> <5621371C.2000507@plumgrid.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, ebiederm@xmission.com, tgraf@suug.ch, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov To: Alexei Starovoitov , Hannes Frederic Sowa , davem@davemloft.net Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5621371C.2000507@plumgrid.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 10/16/2015 07:42 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 10/16/15 10:21 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> Another question: >> Should multiple mount of the filesystem result in an empty fs (a new >> instance) or in one were one can see other ebpf-fs entities? I think >> Daniel wanted to already use the mountpoint as some kind of hierarchy >> delimiter. I would have used directories for that and multiple mounts >> would then have resulted in the same content of the filesystem. IMHO >> this would remove some ambiguity but then the question arises how this >> is handled in a namespaced environment. Was there some specific reason >> to do so? > > That's an interesting question! > I think all mounts should be independent. > I can see tracing using one and networking using another one > with different hierarchies suitable for their own use cases. > What's an advantage to have the same content everywhere? > Feels harder to manage, since different users would need to > coordinate. I initially had it as a mount_single() file system, where I was thinking to have an entry under /sys/fs/bpf/, so all subsystems would work on top of that mount point, but for the same reasons above I lifted that restriction. Cheers, Daniel