[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2143735451.55767.1460561962122.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:39:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
mingo@...hat.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, luto@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, zab@...hat.com, emunson@...mai.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, arnd@...db.de,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
iulia manda21 <iulia.manda21@...il.com>,
dave hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, mguzik@...hat.com,
adobriyan@...il.com, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, gorcunov@...il.com,
fw@...eb.enyo.de, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask.
----- On Apr 13, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjones@...hat.com wrote:
> v1 -> v2:
>
> - Use current_umask() instead of current->fs->umask.
>
> - Retested it.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's not possible to read the process umask without also modifying it,
> which is what umask(2) does. A library cannot read umask safely,
> especially if the main program might be multithreaded.
>
> This patch series adds a trivial system call "getumask" which returns
> the umask of the current process.
In addition to this system call, we could extend a variation of my
thread_local_abi system call (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/4/455)
(could be without features flags, or an entirely new system call
specifically for a umask cache) to register a "current umask" cache
located in a TLS area.
Basically, reading the current umask value would be a simple load from
a TLS variable. This could also allow quickly blocking and unblocking
signal delivery from user-space by storing a mask to this TLS area.
The kernel could then look into the signal mask in this TLS area whenever
it needs to deliver a signal (assuming this code path can take
user-space faults), in addition to the mask kept within the
task struct.
This "tls cache" idea could also apply to setting a CPU affinity to the
currently running CPU for short user-space critical sections.
The benefit here is to get _very_ fast operations on the thread umask
and cpu affinity.
Are those ideas too far-fetched ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Another approach to this has been attempted before, adding something
> to /proc, although it didn't go anywhere. See:
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1292109
>
> Another way to solve this would be to add a thread-safe getumask to
> glibc. Since glibc could own the mutex, this would permit libraries
> linked to this glibc to read umask safely.
>
> I should also note that man-pages documents getumask(3), but no
> version of glibc has ever implemented it.
>
> Typical test script:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <linux/unistd.h>
> #include <sys/syscall.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int r = syscall(329);
> if (r == -1) {
> perror("getumask");
> exit(1);
> }
> printf("umask = %o\n", r);
> exit(0);
> }
>
> $ ./getumask
> umask = 22
>
> Rich.
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists