| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:56 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...e.de, mucci@...utk.edu, eranian@....hp.com, wcohen@...hat.com, robert.richter@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org Subject: Re: [perfmon] Re: [perfmon2] perfmon2 merge news David Miller writes: > This is my impression too, all of the things being done with > a slew of system calls would be better served by real special > files and appropriate fops. Special files and fops really only work well if you can coerce the interface into one where data flows predominantly one way. I don't think they work so well for something that is more like an RPC across the user/kernel barrier. For that a system call is better. For instance, if you have something that kind-of looks like read_pmds(int n, int *pmd_numbers, u64 *pmd_values); where the caller supplies an array of PMD numbers and the function returns their values (and you want that reading to be done atomically in some sense), how would you do that using special files and fops? > Whether the thing is some kind > of misc device or procfs is less important than simply getting > away from these system calls. Why? What's inherently offensive about system calls? Paul. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists