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: <20061103085712.GA3725@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:57:12 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	Nate Diller <nate.diller@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.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.

Hi!

> > 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.

Not sure what you are smoking, but "there's unsigned long in *bsd
version, lets rewrite it from scratch" sounds like very bad idea. What
about fixing that one bit you don't like?
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/