linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project

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: <20100318205655.GB4821@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:56:55 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	drepper@...il.com
Cc:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
 project


* drepper@...il.com <drepper@...il.com> wrote:

> > For example, just to state the obvious: libaio has been written 8 years 
> > ago in 2002 and has been used in apps early on. Why arent those kernel 
> > APIs, while not being a full/complete solution, supported by glibc, and 
> > wrapped to pthreads based emulation on kernels that dont support it?
> 
> You never looked at the glibc code in use and didn't read what I wrote 
> before.  We do have an implementation of libaio using those interfaces.  
> They exist in the Fedora/RHEL glibc and are probably copied elsewhere, too.  
> The code is not upstream because it is not general enough.  It simply 
> doesn't work in all situations.

So it's good enough to be in Fedora/RHEL but not good enough to be in upstream 
glibc? How is that possible? Isnt that a double standard?

Upstream libc presence is really what is needed for an API to be ubiquitous to 
apps. That is what 'closes the loop' in the the positive feedback cycle loop 
and creates real back pressure and demand on the kernel to get its act 
together.

Again, i state it for the third time, the KAIO situation is mostly the 
kernel's fault. But glibc is certainly not being helpful in that situation 
either and your earlier claim that you are only waiting for the patches is 
rather dishonest.

Thanks,

	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/