linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

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: <20090107205816.GC4597@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:58:16 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd


* Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:

> New syscall should have gone to linux-api, I think.
> 
> Do we really need another one for this?  How about using signalfd plus 
> setting the child's exit_signal to a queuing (SIGRTMIN+n) signal instead 
> of SIGCHLD?  It's slightly more magical for the userland process to know 
> to do that (fork -> clone SIGRTMIN).  But compared to adding a syscall 
> we don't really have to add, maybe better.

hm, i think it's cleaner conceptually than trying to wrap this into 
signalfd. Since we already have:

  #define __NR_signalfd           321
  #define __NR_timerfd_create     322
  #define __NR_timerfd_settime    325
  #define __NR_timerfd_gettime    326
  #define __NR_signalfd4          327

is one more really such an issue?

	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/