linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] tty: Add get- ioctls to fetch tty status

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:	Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:46:24 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tty: Add get- ioctls to fetch tty status



Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:

>On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 06:09:53PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 01:52:32AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:11:44AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Sysfs is one value per file, you have three values here, please
>make 3
>> > > > files.
>> > > > 
>> > > > And document them in Documentation/ABI/.
>> > > 
>> > > Hmm, sure Greg, I'll update. Thanks!
>> > 
>> > Something like below I suppose? Look, if there will be no complains
>> > on tech aspects on the patch (locking and tty refs) -- I'll update
>> > Documentation. Just want be sure I've made no mistakes here.
>> > 
>> > Another question -- would not it be worth to wrap code with
>> > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE?
>> 
>> Alan's point stands, what's the use of this if it can instantly
>change
>> after you read the value?
>
>We use it when we do a checkpoint, ie when tasks are stopped. I think
>it's
>close to data obtained from procfs (ie valid once you read it but can
>be
>changed right after that operation). Maybe I should put everything to
>procfs, or stick back with ioctl calls?

The problem as I see it is that you don't know if your process is the lock holder.
-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/