| 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 04:07:58 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: paulus@...ba.org 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 From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:03:24 +1100 > You're suggesting that the behaviour of a read() should depend on what > was in the buffer before the read? Gack! Surely you have better > taste than that? Absolutely that's what I mean, it's atomic and gives you exactly what you need. I see nothing wrong or gross with these semantics. Nothing in the "book of UNIX" specifies that for a device or special file the passed in buffer cannot contain input control data. > > Another alternative is to use generic netlink. > > Then you end up with two system calls to get the data rather than one > (one to send the request and another to read the reply). For > something that needs to be quick that is a suboptimal interface. Not necessarily, consider the possibility of using recvmsg() control message data. With that it could be done in one go. This also suggests that it could be implemented as it's own protocol family. - 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