linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations

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: <E1L0cSz-0006xF-0O@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:42:37 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	tj@...nel.org
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	greg@...ah.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] FUSE: extend FUSE to support more operations

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Tejun Heo wrote:
> We don't need POLL_RELEASE

What happens on timeout?  Do we just let userspace continue polling
the file descriptor, and then ignore the notification?

>  but we still need POLL-reply (to request) to
> send revents.  We can put that into notification too.  Hmmm... Yeah,
> that could be simpler for FUSE servers.  I'll venture that way.

Then in fact the notification could just become the reply:

<- POLL-request (sent with request_send_nowait())
...
-> POLL-reply  (calls req->end())

So there won't even be a need to implement notification (we'll need
that for other things in the future) simplifying things even further.
Even if we want to cancel the request because of a timeout, that could
be done with the existing INTERRUPT request.

Miklos
--
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/