linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] timerfd extend clockid support

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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902091523010.8503@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:23:43 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] timerfd extend clockid support

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >
> >> > and I did not have even the time to peek
> >> > into the core timer code to see if the usage of other timer types in
> >> > eventfd would create problems. That's why I asked Thomas if they'd behave
> >> > differently from an hrtimer caller POV.
> >> > I'll try to take a look by myself today or tomorrow.
> >>
> >> Okay -- hopefully my test program may be useful (even if it is not
> >> itself fully tested yet, it's patterned after a similar test program I
> >> wrote fot the POSIX timers API, so it should mostly work).
> >
> > Answer was pretty easy once you look at the code :)
> > Timerfd uses core hrtimer functions, and clockids different from the ones
> > timerfd already handles, fall into the CPU-timers domain. Domain that is
> > not handled by hrtimer.
> > Changes to timerfd to support CPU-based timers are really deep (more than
> > changes, is a total rewrite). not only to timerfd, but also to CPU-based
> > timers to deliver notification by means different than signals.
> > Given the amount of code change, and given that a posix-timers->signalfd
> > bridge could solve the problem, I'm not going even close to suggest such a
> > change.
> 
> Davide,
> 
> Will you nevertheless push the patch that adds the EINVAL flags checks?

Sure, I'll send it to Greg and Andrew.


- Davide


--
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/