| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 04:06:15 -0800 From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net> To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] An alternative interface to device mapper Hi Pavel, On Saturday 08 March 2008 03:38, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Unlike a pipe, there is no waiting for input on a ddlink: if there is > > nothing to read then the read returns immediately with zero length. If > > some other behavior is desired it can be obtained using poll. > > That's kind of strange, no? It doesn't feel strange in practice. The ddlink framework itself does not implement this, the module does (e.g. ddsetup). So you can put a poll wait in your read method if that suits your interface. It just does not seem to be useful for ddsetup, which does not produce any data of the kind that needs an application to sit in a loop waiting for something to arrive. If there is an application like that, it would probably want to poll the ddlink anyway, to avoid having a whole thread dedicated to just that. Maybe the reason it does not feel strange to omit the wait is, reading from proc never waits. A ddlink fd is more like proc than like a pipe. It was Trond who started called his thing a "pipefs", blame him ;-) > Should not description of interface go to Doc* somewhere? Yes, will fix. Daniel -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists