linux-kernel - Re: Problems with timerfd()

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: <46B81745.9010409@gmx.net>
Date:	Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:55:01 +0200
From:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>, drepper@...hat.com,
	stable@...nel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: Problems with timerfd()

Andrew,

I'm working on the changes to timerfd(), but must admit I am struggling to
understand some of the kernel code for working with userspace timers (e.g.,
in kernel/posix-timers.c).  Can you suggest anyone who could provide
assistance?

Cheers,

Michael

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:18:51 +0200
> Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net> wrote:
> 
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:32:29 +0200 Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> The timerfd() syscall went into 2.6.22.  While writing the man page for
>>>> this syscall I've found some notable limitations of the interface, and I am
>>>> wondering whether you and Linus would consider having this interface fixed
>>>> for 2.6.23.
>>>>
>>>> On the one hand, these fixes would be an ABI change, which is of course
>>>> bad.  (However, as noted below, you have already accepted one of the ABI
>>>> changes that I suggested into -mm, after Davide submitted a patch.)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, the interface has not yet made its way into a glibc
>>>> release, and the change will not break applications.  (The 2.6.22 version
>>>> of the interface would just be "broken".)
>>> I think if the need is sufficient we can do this: fix it in 2.6.23 and in
>>> 2.6.22.x.  That means that there will be a few broken-on-new-glibc kernels
>>> out in the wild, but very few I suspect.
>> So I'm still not quite clear.  Can I take it from your statement above that
>> the proposed ABI changes would be admissible, as long as Davide is okay
>> with them?
>>
> 
> yup, I'll send that diff into Linus and -stable and see what happens.
> 

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7

Want to help with man page maintenance?  Grab the latest tarball at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/manpages/
read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source files for 'FIXME'.
-
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/