linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH for-next 2/4] epoll: epoll() syscall declaration

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:	Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:44:16 -0800
From:	Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd.d4y@...il.com>
To:	Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
Cc:	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for-next 2/4] epoll: epoll() syscall declaration

On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 10:30 +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd.d4y@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> wrote:
> > > Nathaniel Yazdani <n1ght.4nd.d4y@...il.com> wrote:
> > >> +asmlinkage long sys_epoll(int ep, struct epoll __user *in,
> > >> +                       unsigned int inc, struct epoll __user *out,
> > >> +                       unsigned int outc, int timeout);
> > >
> > > I can understand using the new struct for 'in', but 'out' could just be
> > > "struct epoll_event *" like sys_epoll_wait, right?
> > >
> > >>  asmlinkage long sys_epoll_wait(int epfd, struct epoll_event __user *events,
> > 
> > Yeah and I went back and forth on that, it just seemed to me that the
> > inconsistency could be confusing to others... maybe instead of defining a new
> > struct to begin with it might make me sense to just have an 'infd' array of file
> > descriptors in addition to an 'in' array of epoll_event struct
> > (obviously the length
> > of these would be identical).
> 
> I don't think a separate array for in is a good idea, too error prone
> and you lose locality.
> 
> For output, some users either end up allocating more memory/retrieve
> fewer items with the larger struct for *out.
Well having a different struct for input and output would be just as
error prone too, plus the file descriptor of a triggered event is
highly relevant information.

--
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/