linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

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:	Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:04:10 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	drepper@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> But it still has the same braindamage: one system call per loop
> invocation, and we can do better.  I would much rather see fdwalk() in SUS.

Why would we bother to do better?

System calls are cheap, and usually you actually do want to do
something about the fd, so you actually want to iterate over them.

I'd much rather have simple cheap interfaces than anything else. If
SuS has a F_NEXT fcntl, let's just do that thing. Much simpler than
doing something more complex and then just having to emulate the
simple thing in user space anyway.

If a standard interface exists, we should just use it.

                  Linus
--
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/