linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce sendfd() syscall

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: <1417589306.5303.120.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 02 Dec 2014 22:48:26 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Alex Dubov <alex.dubov@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce sendfd() syscall

On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 13:11 +1100, Alex Dubov wrote:

> Kindly enlighten me, how are you going to use any file descriptor in a
> 128 threads program in a scalable way (socket and all)? How this
> approach will be different when using signalfd()?

Thats the point : use one different channel (AF_UNIX socket, or AF_INET
listener...) per thread.

Each thread uses epoll() on a private epoll fd, and a dedicated channel
to get fds from other processes.

Sharing a signalfd() would be terrible, like using accept() on a single
listener socket :(

Your proposed interface, being tied to legacy signal(s), do not allow
for many multiple channels.

Sorry, but using signals is simply a no go for me.


--
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/