On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:56:14PM -0400, jayjwa wrote: > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Michael Halcrow wrote: > -> It is inappropriate to use procfs for communications with a > -> userspace daemon. Plus, there is no point in generating a > -> separate handle for each daemon; the daemons can all multiplex on > -> a single device handle instead. > > It seems odd to have a /dev entry for ecryptfs when it's not a > device. Wouldn't sysfs, possibly along with configfs > (/usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/configfs/configfs.txt) be > better suited?
The eCryptfs kernel module needs to engage in two-way communications with a userspace daemon, which involves transmitting a good quantity of data very frequently (at least on each file open event when the inode does not exist). Sysfs is not suited for that; in fact, Greg K-H ripped out code that just printed out a few strings for being against the one-value-per-file rule for sysfs: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/11/2/380876 I would not want to put it in configfs because it has nothing to do with configuration. Again, this is for frequent two-way communication with one or more dedicated daemons in userspace. There are plenty of /dev files that are not backed by any physical device. Given the various alternatives and given the device-like nature of how eCryptfs communicates with userspace daemons, /dev really is the most appropriate place to put the handle. Mike
pgpR2CoXp5zvb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________ eCryptfs-users mailing list eCryptfs-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecryptfs-users
