linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFCv2] notify userspace about time changes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100819153127.GC2985@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:31:27 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <virtuoso@...nd.org>, lkml@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFCv2] notify userspace about time changes

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:36:12AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:09:37PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:53:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Is sysfs the right interface for this thing?  Bear in mind that
> > > CONFIG_SYSFS does exist.  
> > > 
> > > > +		     fd = open("/sys/kernel/time_notify", O_WRONLY);
> > > > +		     fdprintf(fd, "%d 1 0 1 1", efd);
> > > 
> > > why not
> > > 
> > > 		sys_time_notify(efd, 1, 0, 1, 1);
> > 
> > Yeah, that would be much better than a sysfs file, this is abusing the
> > sysfs interface quite a lot.
> 
> Do you really think, that increasing number of syscalls is better then
> fs-based interfaces?

As you are pretty much creating a new syscall here anyway, there is no
problem with making it a real one, right?  That way you can properly
handle the user/kernel documentation and persistance over time (i.e. you
can't change it.)

So yes, a syscall would be better, especially as this does not exactly
fit into the model of sysfs, right?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/