[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4182E03E-A471-458C-98E6-4524C10BBE9A@mac.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:36:05 -0500
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@....de
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5
On Feb 26, 2007, at 13:46:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>>> I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name ==
>>> NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps,
>>> admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be
>>> exptected to catch the error before performing the shared system
>>> call?
>> At that point would it not be cheaper to have two system calls,
>> the table cost isn't very large.
>
> It's not just the table, though, you need two entry points, but
> even that isn't really all that big either, I guess.
Well, I suppose there are multiple possibilities for consolidation:
frevokeat(fd, "/foo/bar/baz") => normal frevokeat
frevokeat(-1, "/foo/bar/baz") => revoke("/foo/bar/baz");
frevokeat(fd, NULL) => frevoke(fd);
Neither of those would ordinarily be considered to do anything useful
and for new syscalls I can't see the possibility of breaking existing
programs. On the other hand, it's not like we have any problems with
the syscall tables getting too large.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists