linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/22] pollfs: filesystem abstraction for pollable objects

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705021053040.7176@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2007 11:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Davi Arnaut <davi@...ent.com.br>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/22] pollfs: filesystem abstraction for pollable objects

On Wed, 2 May 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote:

> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> >   
> > > David, could you provide some feedback please?  The patches are stunningly
> > > free of comments, but you used to do that to me pretty often so my
> > > sympathy
> > > is limited ;)
> > >     
> > 
> > You bastard! :)
> > Ok, from a brief look ...
> > 
> > [general]
> > The code adds an extra indirection over the already existing
> > file_operations, that IMO already sufficently abstract a file.
> > The compat code, if I read it correctly, does not support files crossing
> > 32/64 bits boundaries (exec or SCM_RIGHTS).
> > 
> >   
> 
> The compat code is not already finished, I plan to address compat
> code on the next version.

How? Compat on sys_read/sys_write?



> > [timers]
> > Returns a structure instead of a 32 bit counter (ala timerfd), and needs
> > extra compat code.
> >   
> 
> Yes, but the compat code will be quite small.

Why would that be even justified?



> > [signal]
> > All the discussions that went on for signalfd has been lost. It pins the
> > task struct and it does not handle process detach signaling.
> >   
> 
> No, I just went into a different direction.

I'd say wrong, because signalfd addressed valid concerns of quite a few 
ppl.



- Davide


-
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/