linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] epoll: read(),write(),ioctl() interface

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: <52EF64CE.90506@ladisch.de>
Date:	Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:43:42 +0100
From:	Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
To:	Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd.d4y@...il.com>,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
CC:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] epoll: read(),write(),ioctl() interface

Nathaniel Yazdani wrote:
> Using the normal I/O interface to manipulate eventpolls is much neater
> than using epoll-specific syscalls

But it introduces a _second_ API, which is epoll-specific too, and does
not use the standard semantics either.

> while also allowing for greater flexibility (theoretically, pipes could
> be used to filter access).

I do not understand this.

> read() simply waits for enough events to fill the provided buffer.

The usual semantics of read() are to return a partially filled buffer if
it would block otherwise, i.e., blocking is done only if the returned
buffer would have been empty.

> As timeout control is essential for polling to be practical, ioctl() is
> used to configure an optional timeout

This is what the timeout parameter of poll() and friends is for.


Regards,
Clemens
--
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/