linux-kernel - Re: [patch] add file position info to proc

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: <20070327223324.GB6752@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:33:24 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] add file position info to proc

Hi!

> > > > For each fd the information is provided in the following format:
> > > > 
> > > > pos:	1234
> > > > flags:	0100002
> > > 
> > > Octal? Maybe we should use more traditional hex here?
> 
> It's octal in <fcntl.h>, so it's easier for a human to read.
> 
> > Good point.  The O_foo flags are per-arch, so this field has the potential
> > to be subtly different on different architectures, which is unpleasing.
> > 
> > > Or even list flags by name?
> > 
> > urg.  Simple enough to do (lookup table, please).  But is it worth it? 
> > Perhaps just remove that field?
> 
> I wouldn't mind.  But leaving it to an application or for a human to
> sort out is OK I guess.  There are lots of non-portable numbers in
> proc.

Hmm, I do not think we want non-portable numbers in proc. What are
other examples?
								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/