| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090721173247.158a6292@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:32:47 +0100 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: add an event interface > Sounds good to me. Though tbh, in my eyes the "proper" fix for this > whole problem would be something which would enable userspace to > poll() for VT changes. Having blocking ioctl()s still requires most The question there is what device do you poll(). It's easy enough to magic up a separate vtevent device I guess. > userspace applications to spawn a thread for doing that since usually > they are not exclusively waiting for VT events, but also for dbus > requests or some other events. > > But OTOH I guess 2 threads are still better than the old situation > requiring processes to run 64 threads for listening for VT changes. > > Oh, and one more note: instead of padding the struct it would probably > be more future-proof to simply pass the struct size in addition to the > struct to the ioctl(). Padding is a lot simpler and less likely to cause bugs later (typecasting, mischecking of sizes etc). For the kernel I favour simplicity. A vtevent poll/read interface would be even cleaner so I will think about that a bit further. Alan -- 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