linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

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:	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:02:32 -0800
From:	"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...il.com>
To:	"Roland McGrath" <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Casey Dahlin" <cdahlin@...hat.com>,
	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Randy Dunlap" <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	"Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Davide Libenzi" <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:
> Do we really need another one for this?  How about using signalfd plus
> setting the child's exit_signal to a queuing (SIGRTMIN+n) signal instead of
> SIGCHLD?  It's slightly more magical for the userland process to know to do
> that (fork -> clone SIGRTMIN).  But compared to adding a syscall we don't
> really have to add, maybe better.

Since waitfd shouldn't consume the child termination notification
waitfd should be more widely usable than the wait*() interfaces.
I.e., it's not necessary to restrict the use to parents.  Any process
with the same UID should be allowed to call waitfd.  This would allow
some new user cases.
--
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/