linux-kernel - Re: [KVM PATCH v5 0/4] irqfd fixes and enhancements

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]

Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	mst@...hat.com, avi@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v5 0/4] irqfd fixes and enhancements

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:

> So I know we talked yesterday in the review session about whether it was
> actually worth all this complexity to deal with the POLLHUP or if we
> should just revert to the prior "two syscall" model and be done with
> it.  Rusty reflected these same sentiments this morning in response to
> Davide's patch in a different thread.
> 
> I am a bit torn myself, tbh.  I do feel as though I have a good handle
> on the issue and that it is indeed now fixed (at least, if this series
> is applied and the slow-work issue is fixed, still pending upstream
> ACK).  I have a lot invested in going the POLLHUP direction having spent
> so much time thinking about the problem and working on the patches, so I
> a bit of a biased opinion, I know.
> 
> The reason why I am pushing this series out now is at least partly so we
> can tie up these loose ends.  We have both solutions in front of us and
> can make a decision either way.  At least the solution is formally
> documented in the internet archives forever this way ;)
> 
> I took the review comments to heart that the shutdown code was
> substantially larger and more complex than the actual fast-path code.  I
> went though last night and simplified and clarified it.  I think the
> latest result is leaner and clearer, so please give it another review
> (particularly for races) before dismissing it.
> 
> Ultimately, I think the concept of a release notification for eventfd is
> a good thing for all eventfd users, so I don't think this thing should
> go away per se even if irqfd decides to not use it. 

Whatever you guys decide if fine for me. Next time though, I think I'll 
wait a month or so after taking any action :)


- 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/