linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] reintroduce accept4

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: <cfd18e0f0811131402j7ec6a60cq462916cc9715b9aa@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:02:28 -0500
From:	"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Subrata Modak" <subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
	"Davide Libenzi" <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Roland McGrath" <roland@...hat.com>,
	"Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Alan Cox" <alan@...hat.com>,
	"Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] reintroduce accept4

Hit the send button a little early on my last mail.  Just to complete one piece:

> My only argument is with the name of the new sysytem call.

... Each of these new system calls (accept4(), dup3(), evenfd2(),
signalfd4(), inotify_init1(), epoll_create1(), pipe2()) has a name
that's based on the number of arguments it has.  This follows a
convention that was used in a few traditional Unix system calls, e.g.,
wait3(), wait4(), dup2().  However, it's probably a mistake since:

a) The glibc interfaces can have different numbers of arguments from
the system call

b) In the future, we might use the new bits in the flags argument to
signal the presence of additional arguments for the call, in which
case the number in the name no longer matches the number of arguments
in the call signature.

In the end, names like acceptx(), dupx(), ... or acceptfl(), duplf(),
... or somesuch would probably have been better.  But given that we
already added the other system calls, it doesn't seem worth bothering
to change things for accept4().

Cheers,

Michael
--
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/