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: <1231596565.11642.24.camel@quest>
Date:	Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:09:25 +0000
From:	Scott James Remnant <scott@...onical.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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

On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 12:53 -0800, Roland McGrath 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.
> 
Doesn't that also change the wait() options you need as well?

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@...onical.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)