| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20081110084123.GE22392@elte.hu> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:41:23 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> Cc: Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Subject: Re: [patch] add /proc/pid/stack to dump task's stack trace * Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 01:10:54PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Sidenote: it would still be nice if the procfs folks converted the > > old-style code there to the new seqfile APIs, before requiring > > everyone _else_ to follow those guidelines? > > For every existing non seqfile /proc file, there may be (and was > demonstrated) some userspace which is doing pread(2) on it and > seqfiles don't support pread currently. Obviously, no such userspace > exist for /proc/*/stack. ok, i then dont understand why we are advocating seqfile use, while seqfiles are inferior replacements in certain aspects (no pread(2) support). Adding pread(2) support would remove all doubt, and it could be converted all across the spectrum, eliminating any confusion about which facility to use, right? Ingo -- 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