linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface

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.4.64.0709061629250.14600@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, corbet@....net,
	jengelh@...putergmbh.de, hch@....de, stable@...nel.org,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, rdunlap@...otime.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revised timerfd() interface

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> You are asserting this in the face of two previous APIs designed 
> by people who (at least in the case of POSIX timers) probably 
> thoroughly examined and discussed existing APIs and practice.

You really think that. Uhmm, ok.



> This function is *not at all* equivalent to the "get"
> functionality of the previous APIs.  The "get" functionality
> of POSIX timers (for example) returns a structure that contains
> the timer interval and the *time until the next expiration of
> the timer* (not the initial timer string, as your code above
> does).
> So come up with a reliable, race-free way of doing that in
> userspace.  Then make it work for both CLOCK_MONOTONIC and
> CLOCK_REALTIME timers.  (You'll certainly need to be making
> some additional system calls, by the way: at least some
> calls to clock_gettime().)

No, I don't think I will. Since 1) it's so trivial it's not even 
challenging 2) you know it can be done (I assume) 3) it solves a non-case 
made up to justify an API/kernel-code bloating.
But you don't need *my* signoff. Cook a working patch, make a case for it, 
and gather support and signoffs. I won't be acking it because, as I said 
many times, I think it's useless bloating.



- 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/