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: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:21:35 -0500 From: Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@...hat.com> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> CC: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Scott James Remnant <scott@...split.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] waitfd: file descriptor to wait on child processes Alan Cox wrote: >>> This propogates the fundamental braindamage of waitpid - the fact the >>> notification only works on child process trees. >>> >>> Here is a more elegant suggestion - use epoll, inotify and friends fully >>> on /proc process nodes. >>> > > >> Last I checked inotify was not supported in /proc, or at least most of >> it. What kind of work load is it to change that? >> > > I don't know but I think it would be the better approach to find it. That > also separates notification of state to parents from the general problem > of wanting to know when a service has died, which seems to be an ever > more common point of interest on the desktop in particular. > > Of course, using inotify on proc will not (and should not) actually reap dead processes, meaning waitpid() isn't obviated by the change (though now it is always called on a specific pid and is never expected to block or EAGAIN). We also introduce a new gotcha for userspace programs: this mechanism works identically for child and non-child processes, so a process may or may not be waitable when returned. A simple "do not shoot self in foot" should suffice for this though. Also, it doesn't work if /proc hasn't been mounted, which just so happens to matter for my particular use cases :) > File content change notification for /proc is hard because the contents > don't exist in the normal way and get updated but can be done if there is > a wait queue for the job. Actual changes to structure (new directories > etc) is in part a similar problem but there are clear points already in > existence when the proc nodes are created/destroyed and thus notification > can occur. > > Changes to structure are more interesting in terms of this particular problem anyway, and definitely simpler to capture. --CJD -- 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