linux-kernel - Re: [patch] pipe: add support for shrinking and growing pipes

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:	Mon, 24 May 2010 10:43:45 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	mtk.manpages@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] pipe: add support for shrinking and growing pipes

Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> writes:

>> > We can easily make F_GETPIPE_SZ return bytes, but I don't think passing
>> > in bytes to F_SETPIPE_SZ makes a lot of sense. The pipe array must be a
>> > power of 2 in pages. So the question is if that makes the API cleaner,
>> > passing in number of pages but returning bytes? Or pass in bytes all
>> > around, but have F_SETPIPE_SZ round to the nearest multiple of pow2 in
>> > pages if need be. Then it would return a size at least what was passed
>> > in, or error.

I really think "power of 2 in pages" is simply current implementation
detail, not detail of pipe API.

>> I'd recommend this: Pass it in and out in bytes. Don't round to a
>> power of 2. Require the user to know what they are doing. Give an
>> error if the user doesn't supply a power-of-2 * page-size for
>> F_SETPIPE_SZ. (Again, consider the case of architectures  with
>> switchable page sizes.)
>
> But is there much point in erroring on an incorrect size? If the
> application says "I need at least 120kb of space in there", kernel
> returns "OK, you got 128kb". Would returning -1/EINVAL for that case
> really make a better API? Doesn't seem like it to me.

FWIW, my first impression of this was setsockopt(SO_RCV/SNDBUF) of unix
socket. Well, API itself wouldn't say "at least this size" or "exactly
this size", so, in here, important thing is consistency of interfaces, I
think. (And the both is sane API at least for me if those had
consistency in the system.)

Well, so how about set/get in bytes, and kernel will set "at least
specified size" actually like setsockopt(SO_RCV/SNDBUF)?

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/