linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

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: <20070427204207.GA29551@tuatara.stupidest.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:42:07 -0700
From:	Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>,
	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, torvalds@...l.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com, suparna@...ibm.com, cmm@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:46:13PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:

> If one insists to have fd at first argument, what is wrong with
> having u32 arguments only?

Well, I was one of those who objected as it seems *UGLY* to me.

> It's not that this syscall comes even close to what can be
> considered performance critical...

Right.

> It adds userspace overhead for one architecture. Every *trace and
> *libc needs special handling on s390 for this syscall. I would
> prefer to avoid this.

I'm not that bothered about it.  I would prefer it did use clean
64-bit arguments, but given it's a non-critical syscall I'm don't
think the aesthetics are worth impossing crud on s390 for.


-
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/