linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] ufd v1 - use unsequential O(1) fdmap

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: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706032210040.23741@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sun, 3 Jun 2007 22:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
cc:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] ufd v1 - use unsequential O(1) fdmap



On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 
> Agreed, a new syscall looks less messy. I'll make sys_dup2() to allow 
> installing in the non-sequential area, only if there's an fd already 
> allocated. F_DUPFD will remain unchanged (that is, not allow 
> non-sequential fds allocations).

I actually think that a new system call is _hugely_ messy. It means that 
anybody who wants to use a new feature needs to have a new glibc. Not 
nice, not nice at all. I'd much rather see a totally transparent extension 
that doesn't require any new user space what-so-ever to be used...

		Linus
-
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/