linux-kernel - Re: [take22 0/4] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.

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]

Message-ID: <20061103084240.GB1184@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date:	Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:42:41 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Nate Diller <nate.diller@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
	Johann Borck <johann.borck@...sedata.com>
Subject: Re: [take22 0/4] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.

On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:40:43AM -0800, Nate Diller (nate.diller@...il.com) wrote:
> Are you saying that the *only* reason we choose not to be
> source-compatible with BSD is the 32 bit userland on 64 bit arch
> problem?  I've followed every thread that gmail 'kqueue' search

I.e. do you want that generic event handling mechanism would not work on
x86_64? I doubt you do.

> returns, which thread are you referring to?  Nicholas Miell, in "The
> Proposed Linux kevent API" thread, seems to think that there are no
> advantages over kqueue to justify the incompatibility, an argument you
> made no effort to refute.  I've also read the Kevent wiki at
> linux-net.osdl.org, but it too is lacking in any direct comparisons
> (even theoretical, let alone benchmarks) of the flexibility,
> performance, etc. between the two.
> 
> I'm not arguing that you've done a bad design, I'm asking you to brag
> about the things you improved on vs. kqueue.  Your emphasis on
> unifying all the different event types into one interface is really
> cool, fill me in on why that can't be effectively done with the kqueue
> compatability and I also will advocate for kevent inclusion.

kqueue just can not be used as is in Linux (_maybe_ *bsd has different
types, not those which I found in /usr/include in my FC5 and Debian
distro). It will not work on x86_64 for example. Some kind of a pointer
or unsigned long in structures which are transferred between kernelspace
and userspace is so much questionable, than it is much better even do
not see there... (if I would not have so political correctness, I would
describe it in a much different words actually).
So, kqueue API and structures can not be usd in Linux.

> NATE

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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/