linux-kernel - Re: RFC: A revised timerfd API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:13:59 +0200 (CEST)
From:	David Härdeman <david@...deman.nu>
To:	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk-manpages@....net>, davidel@...ilserver.org,
	drepper@...hat.com, geoff@...are.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hch@....de, corbet@....net, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	vda.linux@...glemail.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	lee.schermerhorn@...com
Subject: Re: RFC: A revised timerfd API

On Tue, September 18, 2007 13:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>         timer_gettime(fd | POSIX_TIMER_FD, .....);
>
> If we use the most significant bit for POSIX_TIMER_FD, we should be
> fine.

I think alternative b) - three new syscalls, sounds better.

The only negatives so far are that it adds more syscalls and that it might
require code duplication with posix timers. The syscall numbers argument
seemed not to be very important and the code duplication should be fixable
by refactoring the code so that more is shared between the two systems (I
assume).

Overloading file descriptors with flags looks ugly, is there any other
syscall which does that?

-- 
David Härdeman
(sorry Thomas for the dupe, I missed replying to all on the first msg).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/